December 2010 Archives

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about what is happening in the Central Valley in California.  This is a picture I took on my vacation last summer while driving through the Central Valley.

As you can see from the picture, the former 'breadbasket of the world' doesn't look as if it is producing much.  Well, there's a reason for that.

The article at Hot Air explains:

"Until recently, California's Central Valley was one of the nation's most productive agricultural regions.  Not only did it feed itself, the state of California, and the entire country, it also produced exports to other nations.  That kind of enterprise employed a lot of people in Central California, from farm hands to wholesalers, and created a high standard of living."

What happened?  The government got involved.   Because of a small inedible fish called the delta smelt, water which had previously been delivered to the Central Valley through irrigation was cut off for seven months of the year.  This not only impacted farming in the region--it had other serious negative effects on the area. 

According to the article:

"The collapse (of the farm industry in the Central Valley) has another element to it for Californians as well.  The state has a huge budget shortfall, currently estimated around $26 billion, and cannot afford to expand safety-net programs to help the Central Valley.  One reason the budget hole is so large is because of the lack of revenue from normally-robust agricultural production in that region.  Instead of being a net revenue producer, the Central Valley threatens to become a sinkhole of welfare spending that will hasten the bankruptcy of the nation's largest state, and an economy that would normally rank among the top 10 in the world if considered as a nation unto itself." 

I'm not against protecting the delta smelt--I am sure it is a very nice fish (even though you can't eat it), but I believe that we have to look at the entire picture here.  I am sure some very well paid engineer can come up with a way to protect the fish and water the farmland.  If we don't start growing in the Central Valley again, none of us will be able to afford to eat!

Yesterday Hot Air reported that Israel has discovered a natural gas reserve off its coast.  The field is estimated to be about sixteen trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  At this point I must issue a disclaimer--I am a stockholder in a company called Zion Oil and Gas that is drilling for oil in Israel.  I firmly believe that the Middle East oil resources are probably not limited to Arab lands.  Anyway, the article at Hot Air deals with the potential impact of the discovery of this field of natural gas on Middle East politics.

The Wall Street Journal also reported on this discovery.  Ratio Oil Exploration LP, an Israeli oil firm, owns a 15% stake in a giant offshore gas field called Leviathan, operated by Houston-based Noble Energy Inc.

According to the Wall Street Journal article:

"Noble confirmed its earlier estimates that the field contains 16 trillion cubic feet of gas--making it the world's biggest deepwater gas find in a decade, with enough reserves to supply Israel's gas needs for 100 years.

"It's still early days, and getting all that gas out of the seabed may be more difficult than it seems today. But Noble and its partners think the field could hold enough gas to transform Israel, a country precariously dependent on others for energy, into a net-energy exporter."

This is what you would call a mixed blessing.  The economy of Israel will receive a tremendous boost as this natural gas field is developed.  (The Israeli government is already trying to retroactively raise taxes on energy companies!)  The article reports:

"Earlier this year, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said he was considering changing terms retroactively--meaning the government could extract better terms on previously assigned leases. Noble and Israeli oil executives went on the offensive.

"A retroactive change would be "egregious" and "would quickly move Israel to the lowest tier of countries for investment by the energy industry," Noble's chief executive, Chuck Davidson, wrote Mr. Steinitz in April.

"The company enlisted high-level negotiators, including the U.S. State Department and former President Bill Clinton, to lobby against any change.

"Mr. Clinton raised the issue in a private meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York in July, according to a Clinton aide. "Your country can't just tax a U.S. business retroactively because they feel like it," the aide said Mr. Clinton told Mr. Netanyahu.

"Mr. Netanyahu was noncommittal, the aide said. A spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu declined to comment on the meeting."

Maybe President Obama should rethink the way he has been treating Prime Minister Netanyahu!  The situation in the Middle East just got more complicated--Lebanon is also exploring offshore for gas.  We have added a ton of potential money and energy to an already unstable situation.  That may not be good.

Today's New York Post reported that sanitation workers in charge of clearing the snow-covered streets purposely slowed the clean-up process to protest budget cuts.  City Councilman Dan Halloran (R-Queens) stated that a group of sanitation workers visited him and confessed to the plot.

The article reports:

"The snitches "didn't want to be identified because they were afraid of retaliation," Halloran said.   "They were told [by supervisors] to take off routes [and] not do the plowing of some of the major  arteries in a timely manner.  They were told to make the mayor pay for the layoffs, the reductions in rank for the supervisors, shrinking the rolls of the rank-and-file.""

This is a disgrace.  These sanitation workers should be handled the same way Ronald Reagan handled the air traffic controllers when they went on strike in 1981--he fired them for breaking the law (As federal employees the controllers were violating the no-strike clause of their employment contracts.)  The sanitation workers did not go on strike, but their actions resulted in the death of at least two people when medical emergency responders could not get through the snow-covered roads.

The New York Sanitation Department is denying the charges, but multiple sources of the Post list the ways that plow drivers are slowing the removal of the snow. 

The article reports:

"One mechanic said some drivers are purposely smashing plows and salt spreaders to further stall the cleanup effort."

Hopefully the people behind the slowup of the snow removal will be disciplined.  They ignored the public safety issues which are supposed to be part of their job.  That is not acceptable.

I am somewhat amazed at the global warming people.  They never seem to give up or be discouraged by the dishonesty in their research or by the evidence around them.  The website WattsUpWithThat.com posted an article today about past attempts by climate scientists to predict the impact of environmental events on the earth's climate.  The example used is the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991.  The article contrasts the predictions with what actually happened.  Why do we still believe these people?

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article asking, "Is there any weather pattern that would cast down on global warming?"

The lead paragraph of the article states:

"Increased warm temperatures indicate global warming. Severe winter storms also help prove global warming, according to a recent op-ed in the New York Times. So is there any weather pattern that would disprove or call into question the existence of global warming?"

That really is the question!

The article concludes:

"Though he was hesitant to use the word 'disprove,' Johnson said that global warming would only be disproved if the seasons flipped without anything else on earth changing or if the East Coast were to experience 80 degree weather in winter. Johnson also said global warming could be called into question if New York City were to have below freezing temperatures for the entirety of 2011."

Why in the world are we still taking these people seriously?

Yesterday Power Line posted an article about some of the early problems with Obamacare.  The feature that is currently turning out to be not what it was supposed to be is the provision that provides for the care of people who are already sick who want to sign up for health insurance.  The problem is twofold--no one is signing up and the program is proving to be much more expensive than initially thought. 

The article reports:

"As to the first matter, the chief actuary of the Medicare program predicted earlier this year that 375,000 people would sign up for the new pool plans by the end of 2010. As of early December, only 8,000 people had enrolled.

"As to the second matter, the Post reports that in some states the "high-risk pools" are proving very costly. Thus, "it is an open question whether the $5 billion allotted by Congress to start up the plans will be sufficient.""

Didn't Nancy Pelosi say that the more we learned about the healthcare reform bill, the more we would like it?  It seems as if the exact opposite is happening!

The article at Power Line concludes:

"At a minimum, I think the early experience with the high-risk pools foreshadows the unreliablility of key predictions made by Obamacare's supporters. Look for the serious overstatement of benefits and the serious understatement of costs to be a constant feature as the rest of Obamacare is rolled out (assuming no repeal)."

Sounds like a typical government program to me!

Today's Boston Herald posted an article today about the arrest of terrorists plotting to attack the building housing the newsroom of the Denmark paper that published cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.  The plan was to shoot as many people as possible.  Think about that statement.  We need to remember that terrorists have no regard for innocent civilians who are victims of their plots--the innocent victims are seen as a positive part of the attack.  These are the terrorists we are dealing with around the world.  These are the terrorists who are currently in prison at Guantanamo.  These are the terrorists who are desperately seeking nuclear weapons.  It really doesn't help you sleep at night to know this.

According to the article:

""An imminent terror attack has been foiled," said Jakob Scharf, head of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, or PET. He described some the suspects as "militant Islamists with relations to international terror networks" and said that more arrests were possible."

The article relates some of the history of what has happened since the cartoons were published:

"There have been at least four plots to attack against Jyllands-Posten or Kurt Westergaard, the artist who drew the most contentious of 12 cartoons, which were published by the daily in 2005 as a challenge to perceived self-censorship.

""The foiled plot is a direct attack on democracy and freedom of press," Westergaard told the German tabloid Bild. "We may not and won't let anyone forbid us to criticize radical Islamism. We may not be intimidated when it comes to our values."

"In January, a Somali man broke into Westergaard's home wielding an ax and a knife but the artist escaped unharmed by locking himself in a safe-room in the house. In 2008, two Tunisians with Danish residence permits were arrested for plotting to kill him."

Islam may want to be considered a 'religion of peace', but its track record tells another story.  It's time for Muslims who do not support terrorism to stand up and say so.  If the moderate Muslim will not reclaim his religion, why should anyone accept the idea that Islam is a religion of peace?  It seems as if no country in the world is safe from terrorism at the present time.

This article is based on an article in The Jewish Daily Forward which was posted online on December 1.  I came across the article through a link at Power Line posted yesterday.

Rudy Boschwitz, former Senator from Minnesota, shares the story of how he came to America in 1935 as a five-year-old Jewish boy.  His story is an example of how a father took responsibility for the safety of his family and did whatever it took to keep his family safe.

I am quoting extensively from The Jewish Daily Forward article because it is so well written:

"On January 30, 1933, the day Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, Eli Boschwitz, a judicial arbiter, came home and told his wife, "We are leaving Germany forever." He had read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and knew that Jews had no future under the Nazis. Sure enough, within weeks, he and all other Jewish employees of the German court system were summarily dismissed from their jobs."

Eli Boschwitz's decision saved the lives of his immediate family.  They left Germany in July 1933.  It was two years before their journey led them to England where they received permission to come to America.

Senator Boschwitz continues his story in The Jewish Daily Forward:

"The family of his future wife, Ellen Loewenstein, suffered a similar fate. Her family, German Jews who had Swiss passports, secured visas to Brazil in 1940. On the voyage across the Atlantic, a Nazi submarine intercepted the ship and removed Jewish passengers who bore German passports. Some of Ellen Loewenstein's relatives made it to South Africa; those who could not get out of Europe perished in the Holocaust."

The part of Mrs. Boschwitz's story that amazed me was how far the Nazis were willing to go to hunt down and kill Jews.

Senator Boschwitz served on the President's Commission on the Holocaust and helped arrange for the allocation of land in Washington for the establishment of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.  I have been through that museum--the suffering represented is overwhelming, but the courage shown by the victims of the Holocaust is inspiring.

But Senator Boschwitz truly learned the lessons of his personal history.  According to the article in The Jewish Daily Forward:

"In 1991, as the first President Bush's emissary to Ethiopia, he headed an America diplomatic team that sought to arrange for the rescue of Ethiopia's Jews.   "It was a major league mitzvah," Boschwitz said."

During the weekend of May 24 and 15, 1991, more than 14,000 Ethiopian Jews were transported to Israel on 34 El Al planes.

The article at The Jewish Daily Forward concludes:

"Against all odds, history had come full circle: The child driven from his home and (just barely) rescued from genocide grew up to help rescue other homeless Jews from another disaster. And the path to that miracle began 75 years ago on a Manhattan pier."

Thank God Senator Boschwitz was willing not only to learn the lessons of history, but to put those lessons to work in saving the lives of other people who were in the same situtation he was once in.

As oil approaches $100 a barrel and the price at the gas pump crosses the $3 per gallon mark, we need to take a good look at what we are doing to develop our own natural resources.  We also need to admit that until something better comes along, we are a carbon fuel based economy.  The Spanish found out that when they tried to convert to a 'green' economy, they had to abandon the effort because it was too expensive.  We need to learn from their experience.

Chron.com reported yesterday on the efforts of Houston-based ATP Oil & Gas to get a permit to drill a sidetrack off an existing well -- a relatively low-risk proposal for the world of deep-water drilling. It was even revised and updated to meet all of the new requirements imposed on deep- water permits in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon accident.  

According to the article:

"More than 70 days later, the company is still waiting. At a price of about $330,000 per day, Bulmahn has started to get impatient, leading him to take some actions unusual for the company.

"First, ATP hired Washington, D.C., lobbyists for the first time to help push its cause.

""I usually look with great disdain on lobbying efforts," Bulmahn said.

"Then he wrote a personal letter to President Barack Obama - copied to Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar and Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement - pleading with him to "Please issue a permit so we can go back to work."

"And on Sunday he ran the letter as an advertisement in the Chronicle.

""I can't afford to keep these workers employed and playing cards," Bulmahn said."

Many in the oil industry believe that there is a de facto moratorium on Gulf drilling since the oil spill.  The area was opened up in October for drilling, but only a limited number of permits have been approved.

The result of this failure to develop our own natural resources is increased dependency on countries that are financing terrorism, an unfavorable trade balance, and high unemployment in our own country.  We need to be wise in how we develop energy--we need to protect the environment, but we also need to understand the world we live in and its economic realities.

Yesterday the Naperville Sun posted an article about a quadriplegic who is on the road to being able to walk.  Bill Orr was injured in a motorcycle accident in 1986.  He has been a quadriplegic since the accident. 

According to the article:

"In August, Orr underwent what many believe is a first of its kind stem cell procedure in Naples, Fla. -- using bone marrow from his hip that doctors hope will rejuvenate the dead spine cells."

Mr. Orr's progress is impressive.  The article reports:

"Orr had known the appointment would be positive. That's because it now hurts to comb his hair, the result of "more sensation in my body." Plus, he can now do 200 sit-ups and pushups, as well as 20 leg squats in the therapy pool at Delnor Hospital in Geneva.

"And -- here's the really good sign -- he does so without any muscle spasms."

Please note--this is not embryonic stem cells--these are cells from Mr. Orr's own body--there is less chance of rejection, and there are no ethical questions regarding unborn embryos.

The article points out that this is not the result of a government program--this was a private effort:

"The enthusiasm is bigger than Bill Orr, however. Dr. Grekos believes stem cell therapy has the potential to revolutionize medicine, but it's not going to happen through the FDA or pharmaceutical companies. "It's going to take a grass-roots movement," he said.

"Orr wants to be part of that movement, as well. He and his friends are working on a fundraiser -- for more information on the Harley Davidson motorcycle that will be raffled off, go to William Orr's Facebook page -- to help others who could benefit from the therapy."

I wish Mr. Orr the best in his recovery.  May he be able to do everything he could do before the accident in the very near future.  He reminds us never to give up--you don't know what is waiting for you around the next corner.

There are two sources for this article--one is a New York Times article posted on December 25th, the other is an article by Thomas Sowell posted at Townhall.com.

Both articles deal with the Obama Administration's placing a provision in Medicare that Congress had taken out of the healthcare reform act because it was too controversial.   

According to the New York Times article:

"Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment."

In theory, discussing end-of-life care with your doctor is a good idea.  It's in the nuts and bolts where the problems arise.  I do wonder, however, about making end-of-life care part of an annual visit.  According to the New York Times article:

"The new rule says Medicare will cover "voluntary advance care planning," to discuss end-of-life treatment, as part of the annual visit."

The article at Townhall.com reports:

"Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Senator Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counselling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision."

If Congress defeated it, why is it back? 

The article by Thomas Sowell at Townhall.com concludes:

"But if law is not a body of rules, what is it? A set of arbitrary fiats by judges, imposing their own vision of "the needs of the times"? Or a set of arbitrary regulations stealthily emerging from within the bowels of a bureaucracy?

"Louis Brandeis was another leader of this Progressive era chorus of demands for moving beyond law as rules. He cited "newly arisen social needs" and "a shifting of our longing from legal justice to social justice."

"In other words, judges were encouraged to do an end run around rules, such as those set forth in the Constitution, and around the elected representatives of "we the people." As Roscoe Pound put it, law should be "in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public."

"That is still the vision of the left a hundred years later. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it."

The next session of Congress is going to begin with a reading of the U. S. Constitution.  It's time all members of Congress (and the President) took the Constitution seriously.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an article on the impact on unemployment that the Obama Administration's 'green policies' are having. 

The article reports that Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson "promises to issue a draft rule next year and a final rule in 2012 that will establish new "performance standards" for power plants and refineries.  These standards will drive up the cost of energy, especially the electricity that lights our homes and powers our computers and teh gas that keeps our cars and trucks running."

The article reports that Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar "has invented out of whole cloth a "Wild Lands" designation that entirely circumvents the congressionally sanctioned process."  According to the Constitution, Congress has exclusive authority to manage U. S. public lands.  The wilderness areas, national parks and other public lands are overseen by the Department of Interior because Congress has given them that authority. 

The article concludes:

"If these White House-sanctioned bureaucratic coups against congressional authority are allowed to stand, the tombstone on the U. S. economy should read: "Here lies the most powerful engine of prosperity the world has ever seen.  Strangled by Barack Obama, Lisa Jackson and Ken Salazar."

Hopefully one of the first moves of the new Congress will be to reclaim the U. S. Constitution.

Today The Hill posted an article listing the five things to watch in energy policy during the coming year. 

1.  As the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moves to tighten restrictions on greenhouse gases, the Republicans in Congress will move to limit the EPA's power.  Senator John Rockefeller's (D-W.Va.) has previously tried to delay the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases and failed, but this year he will have a Republican majority in the House and more Republicans in the Senate to help with his efforts.  West Virginia is heavily dependent on the coal industry for its economy, and the EPA regulations would have a serious impact on the state's economy. 

2..The continuing impact of the Gulf Oil Spill will also be an item on the Congressional agenda.  Under current law, the financial penalties levied on the companies involved will go back to the federal government,  There will be a move to send the money back to the Gulf region where the damage was done.  Senator Mary Landrieu (D-La.) recently stated that she wants 80 percent of the penalties to go to the Gulf region.

3.  Can the Republicans and President Obama find common ground on energy policy?  OPEC stated recently that it's goal was oil prices at $100 a barrel.  As Americans watch that price reflected in the cost of heating their homes and at the gas pump, there will be a cry for developing domestic oil resources.  As prices rise, Congress may be forced into allowing offshore drilling permits to be issued.

4.  The Sierra Club and The Environmental Defense Fund are already making plans to see tougher limits on greenhouse gasses put in place.  They were not happy with their progress in the last Congress and are planning to take a more 'confrontational stance.'   There will be a battle as to whether or not man-made climate change is real.

5.  Our relationship with China in regard to green energy will be complicated this year by China's green tech trade practices. 

According to the article;

"The Obama administration escalated the conflict Dec. 22 by announcing it will seek formal World Trade Organization talks with China over its wind industry subsidies, which U.S. officials believe have run afoul of WTO rules."

The November elections are not only going to have an impact on taxes and spending--there are many energy issues that will be part of the debate in the coming year. 

Since smokers have been reduced to huddling in freezing doorways outside restaurants and work places, some people have turned to electronic cigarettes, either in an effort to quit smoking or to smoke without creating second-hand smoke.  The electronic cigarette industry's annual sales are estimated at more than $100 million.  To the government, an unregulated industry with $100 million in sales is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.

The Wall Street Journal reported on this story on December 21.

In 2009 Congress gave the FDA the power to to regulate tobacco products for the first time.  According to the article, this is the battle:

"The appellate panel ruled that e-cigarettes should be regulated as tobacco products by the FDA, unless marketers make specific claims that the devices help smokers quit or provide other remedies.

"The agency contends that e-cigarettes are drug or medical devices that require preapproval from the FDA, much like nicotine gums, patches or sprays. The agency began intercepting shipments of e-cigarettes from China two years ago, which triggered a lawsuit by the fledgling industry."

My belief is that when dealing with the government, "follow the money" is the rule.  Electronic cigarettes are not subject to the same taxes that regular cigarettes are--therefore the government does not make the same amount of money when they are bought.  In 2009 Congress passed the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which increased the tax on cigarettes $0.61 per pack or $10.07 per carton.  Meanwhile, your taxpayer dollars still pay subsidies to tobacco farmers!  I have a suggestion for Congress if they are looking for something in the budget to cut!

The article reports:

"The agency (FDA) on Monday filed a petition to ask the entire U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to hold a new hearing and review the FDA's appeal, which was rejected Dec. 7 by a three-judge panel."

This is a story to watch.  How much control of our lives are we willing to give the government?  And have federal agencies overstepped their bounds in what they are attempting to control?

It's very fashionable right now to speak out against 'Blig Government', but exactly what does that mean?  Well, the American Thinker posted an article today that really shows the damage a well-meaning federal bureaucracy can do.

During the Great Depression, farmers simply walked away from their farms and left the land untended.  In the midwest and prairie states, the untilled soil was picked up and carried by winds and the area became known as the Dust Bowl. 

The article at American Thinker picks up the story:

"After a triumphant election, the newly sworn in President Franklin Roosevelt set forth on an aggressive policy push known as the First Hundred Days to create policy and programs known collectively as the New Deal.  Among these was the Soil Erosion service, formed under the authority of the Department of the Interior in 1933.  The SES attempted to address the growing crisis surrounding the erosion of the nation's soil.  Reorganized in 1935, the SES was handed over to the Department of Agriculture, where it began to actively take on the disaster."  

The Soil Erosion Service decided that the answer to the erosion problem was an Asian ornamental plant known as Kudzu.  The article reports:

"...but they did not think of the ramifications that mass planting would have on local ecosystems.  The Department of Agriculture used the Civilian Conservation Corps to distribute and plant the seeds.  Over a period of ten years, one hundred million kudzu seeds were planted, mostly in the South.  The government even bribed farmers to plant kudzu at eight dollars per acre.  By the end of the program, 46 million acres of kudzu had been planted."

Anyone who has driven through the southern part of the United States has seen the devastation this program has caused.  The article reports:

"Kudzu can cover a large area in a small amount of time.  It can destroy an entire forest--and regional timber industries--in a few short years.  The vine grows over the trees and other underbrush, smothering everything under its weight.  Kudzu also causes headaches for telecommunications and electric companies, whose poles are snapped or shorted out by the vine.  Farmland covered in kudzu by the U. S. government has been permanently lost, to say nothing of the millions of dollars wasted.  Just how bad is the spread of kudzu?  Each year it spreads an additional 150,000 acres.  To date, kudzu covers around 10,000 square miles in the United States.  To put it in perspective, the area lost to kudzu is roughly the same size as the state of Massachusetts."

These are the people who are going to be in charge of our medical care?  I hope not.

Merry Christmas

And

Happy New Year

Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story about the Christian churches in Iraq that are not celebrating Christmas this year. 

The story reports:

"Christians across Iraq have been living in fear since the assault on Our Lady of Salvation Church as its Catholic congregation was celebrating Sunday Mass. Sixty-eight people were killed. Days later Islamic insurgents bombed Christian homes and neighborhoods across the capital.

"On Tuesday, al-Qaida insurgents threatened more attacks on Iraq's beleaguered Christians, many of whom have fled their homes or the country since the church attack. A council representing Christian denominations across Iraq advised its followers to cancel public celebrations of Christmas out of concern for their lives and as a show of mourning for the victims."

There is a picture in the article of American soldiers guarding a church during a Mass in Baghdad.  Please pray for the persecuted church around the world and thank God for the blessings we have in America that allow us to celebrate Christmas without fear.

Hot Air reported yesterday on what the Russian media is saying about the START Treaty, recently passed by the Senate. 

The article cites one of the provisions from Page Two of the treaty:

"Recognizing the existence of the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms, that this interrelationship will become more important as strategic nuclear arms are reduced, and that current strategic defensive arms do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic arms of the parties."

This is the linking that Ronald Reagan consistently avoided in his negotiations with the Russians.  The American missile defense program is what essentially brought the Soviet Union to its knees--they simply could not keep up--they didn't have the money or the technology.  Now President Obama has given away our advantage in that area at the same time North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela are aiming missiles at America.

Hot Air reports on the Russian press' assessment of the treaty:

"ITAR-Tass, the main Russian government information agency, reported last week: "The treaty will have a legally binding provision on the link between strategic offensive and defensive weapons and will affirm the increasing importance of this link amid the reduction of strategic offensive weapons.""

Several Republican-authored amendments to the treaty that sought to alter the preamble were voted down, based in part on assertions that the preamble had no legal standing.

It seems to me that what we have here is a failure to communicate.  The article at Hot Air points out that the Russian Duma also has to ratify the treaty.  It will be interesting to see how the Duma will react to the American idea that the treaty does not limit missile defense.

This story is based on two sources--a Power Line article from yesterday and an article at News10 in Sacramento, California.

An airline pilot who was concerned about airport security posted videos on YouTube showing lapses in security at San Francisco International Airport.  Parts of the video he posted can be seen at the Power Line article linked above. 

The News10 article reports:

"Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff's deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

"At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot's gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

"A follow-up letter from the sheriff's department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation."

The News10 describes some of the experience and qualifications of the pilot:

"He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

"He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia."

This sounds like a stable, contributing member of society who does not deserve to be hassled by the government.

The video at Power Line also reports that the pilot's County Sheriff has also revoked his concealed carry weapons permit.

It seems to me that during the Bush Administration whistle blowers were considered a good thing.  At any rate, this seems a bit heavy-handed and I hope the new Congress will take a look into the matter in January.  The video at Power LIne also points out that the airline the pilot works for has asked him to remove the videos from YouTube, but he is not being disciplined by the airline in any way.  The government is also reviewing the pilot's status as a Federal Deputy.  That is a voluntary position, and the pilot could continue to fly without being a Federal Deputy.

The 9/11 First Responders Bill has finally passed in the lame-duck Congress, and thankfully that Congress has gone home.  But have you wondered what the problem was?  We all want to help those who were impacted by that horrible day, what was the delay?

The answer can be found in the following press release from Senator Tom Coburn's office:

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today regarding an agreement on the 9/11 bill.

"I'm pleased the sponsors of this bill agreed to lower costs dramatically, offset the bill, sunset key provisions and take steps to prevent fraud. Every American recognizes the heroism of the 9/11 first responders, but it is not compassionate to help one group while robbing future generations of opportunity. I'm pleased this agreement strikes a fair balance and improves the bill the majority attempted to rush through at the last minute," Dr. Coburn said.

The agreement includes the following changes:

• Reduction in Costs. This agreement saves taxpayers $6.2 billion from the substitute amendment and $7.5 billion from the House-passed bill. In the deal, costs are reduced to $4.2 billion in the 10-year window and eliminated outside the 10-year window. Of that amount, $1.5 billion will go to health benefits, while $2.7 billion will go to compensation.

• Permanently Close the Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) after 5 years. The original bill kept the VCF open through 2031, making it extremely susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse and incurring significant long-term costs. The fund is now open only through 2016 and has language to expressly say that it is permanently closed at after 5 years.

• Limitations on Attorneys Fees. Places a hard cap for attorneys' fees at 10 percent of the total award and allows the Special Master to reduce attorneys fees he believes are excessive

• Prevents Reinstatement of Civil Claims. Prevent claimants who are rejected from the VCF from then pursuing a civil lawsuit. This is consistent with the earlier VCF policy.

• Limitation on Infrastructure Costs. Explicitly excludes construction and capital projects from health care spending in the bill.

• Commitment to ensure eligible individuals cannot "double-dip" on benefits. The Senators all agreed to get in writing from the Special Master that he will include workers compensation benefits in collateral sources of benefits that he must offset from potential compensation awards.

• More Accountability. Require claims-level data reporting to provide accountability and opportunity for oversight, as well as GAO reports to determine less expensive mechanisms to provide nationwide care, pharmaceutical access, and health information technology promotion.

The thing to notice here is that the reduction in cost did not reduce the benefits to the victims--it reduced the lawyers' fees.  The lawyers' lobby is one of the major contributors to Democrat election campaigns.  If Senator Coburn had not fought for this change, the taxpayers would have paid very large sums of money to lawyers rather than victims.  This is the kind of scrutiny and changes that any bill coming before Congress needs to be subjected to.  Thank you, Senator Colburn for standing strong to make this change.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported today that Britain is preparing to confer diplomatic status on the Palestinian delegation in London for the first time. 

The article reports:

"The Foreign Office confirmed it was studying a proposal that would see Palestinian ''general delegations'' upgraded to ''diplomatic missions'' in a number of European capitals."

The article further reports:

"Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership has stepped up its efforts to win European recognition for a state on land occupied by Israel in 1967.

"The Foreign Office said the upgrade did not ''imply recognition of a Palestinian state''."

The recognition of a Palestinian State without that Palestinian State acknowledging the right of Israel to exist is not a good thing.  All that has happened is that a group of people dedicated to wiping out the state of Israel have been made legitimate on the world stage.  That is not a recipe for peace.

Michael Barone is known as the final word on political demographics.  He posted an article at Townhall.com on his interpretation of the recently announced census results. 

Mr. Barone points out that the northeast and California, both of which had been growth centers during the 20th Century, have lost that distinction to Texas. 

Mr. Barone points out:

"Its (Texas) population grew 21 percent in the last decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

"Texas' diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850."

If the states are to be considered 'laboratories for government policies', there are lessons to be learned here--tax policies and legal policies matter. 

In describing the impact of the population changes shown in the 2010 Census, Mr. Barone noted:

"Finally, let's get to politics. The net effect of the reapportionment was to add six House seats and electoral votes to the states John McCain carried in 2008 and to subtract six House seats and electoral votes from the states Barack Obama carried that year. Similarly, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats, and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.

"That's not an enormous change. But it's part of a long-term trend that has reshaped the nation's politics. If you go back to the 1960 election, when the electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, you will find that John Kennedy won 303 electoral votes. But the states he carried then will have only 272 electoral votes in 2012, a bare majority. And without Texas, which he narrowly carried, the Kennedy states would have only 234 electoral votes."

As I said, Mr. Barone is the expert on how elections work in regard to districts and states.  It will be interesting to follow his comments as redistricting of the states begins.

The Obama Administration has not been at all even handed in its dealing with Israel in the Administration's quest for peace in the Middle East.  That is not the reason the process had fallen apart--there will not be peace in the Middle East until both sides acknowledge the right of the other side to exist.  Until that hurdle is overcome, true peace is not possible.

Now the President has a chance to do something good for Israel and for America.  The Jerusalem Post reports that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will ask President Obama to release Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spi who has been in prison in the United States for 25 years. 

According to the article:

"Netanyahu will issue a public, formal and official call in upcoming days for Obama to release the Israeli agent , the Prime Minister's Office announced in a press release Tuesday.

""I intend to continue to act with determination to free Pollard, both because of the ethical obligation Israel has toward him and because Jonathan should have the right to live with his family and rehabilitate his health after so many years in jail," Netanyahu said in the press release."

It's interesting to note that Jonathan Pollard, who was spying for a country that is supposed to be a strong ally, has been held longer than any spy from a country that is not considered friendly to the interests of the United States. 

The Middle East Forum pointed out in 1997:

"Life imprisonment is apparently the harshest punishment ever meted out to someone found guilty of spying during peace time. Indeed, since the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, during the Korean War, no spy has received a harsher sentence, even during war time. The severity of Pollard's sentence is in itself noteworthy.

"It is all the more so in light of two other factors. First, Pollard did not stand trial for his crime. Rather, he received his life sentence after entering into a plea-bargain agreement in which the government promised not to seek a life sentence. Entering into that agreement, Pollard relinquished his right to a trial, cooperated with government investigators, pleaded guilty -- all, presumably, with the expectation that some leniency would be shown in his sentence. The expectation was reasonable, but it proved illusory. Secondly, Pollard was sentenced to life in prison despite the fact that he was never accused of delivering classified information to an enemy of the United States. Rather, he was accused of delivering such information to Israel, a close and staunch American ally. There may be no other case of a life sentence imposed for spying on behalf of a strategic ally."

Some of the information I have found on this case indicates that Mr. Pollard was supplying Israel information on its enemies that the United States had, but had not shared.  He was not simply spying to sell damaging information to our enemies--he was trying to help Israel survive the continuing attacks from its neighbors.

Unless the classified documents surrounding his conviction are made public, we will never know the true reason for the harsh sentence.  Until that happens, I think the best thing to do is free Mr. Pollard and send him home to his family.  Israel is not an enemy of the United States, and we need to treat them as friends--not adversaries.

On Monday the Daily Caller reported that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie commuted the sentence of Brian Aitken--reducing his sentence from seven years in prison to time already served.  Brian Aitken was sentenced to prison because in 2009 police found unloaded guns in the trunk of his car.  The guns had been purchased legally in Colorado where Mr. Aitken lived.  The guns were properly stored and unloaded.  Mr. Aitken was in the process of moving his household to New Jersey to be closer to his son and had not yet registered the guns in New Jersey.

According to the article:

"New Jersey law requires residents who want to transport firearms legally to request a permit from a local law enforcement office and produce a letter stating why it is necessary for them to carry a gun."

On the surface it seems as if this man is no threat to society.  His true crime may have been ignorance of the law or procrastination.  Moving from one state to another is not usually all that complicated, and Mr. Aitken may have simply not gotten around to registering his guns.  He was used to living in a state where gun possession is more common than it is in New Jersey.

Why did New Jersey intend to spend taxpayers' money to keep a man who was making a positive contribution to society locked up in jail for seven years?  I am glad Governor Christie has commuted this sentence.

My source on this goes back to the beginning of December, but the issue is still with us.  On December 1st, a website called The Other McCain posted an article on the Pigford Settlement Project.

The article included a Press Release from Iowa Represenative Steve King:

"Congressman Steve King (R-IA) today issued the following statement after the lame duck Congress passed legislation appropriating $1.15 billion to fund the controversial and fraud-plagued Pigford settlement program. Although estimates suggest that the total universe of black farmers who could qualify for Pigford compensation only encompasses 18,000 people, over 94,000 people have submitted claims under the program. The Pigford funding request was included in H.R. 4783, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which passed the House of Representatives on a 256-152 vote yesterday afternoon. Congressman King voted against the legislation.
"The unaccountable lame duck Congress has irresponsibly voted to spend $1.15 billion on a Pigford settlement program that is severely compromised by fraud," said King. "This means that people who have never farmed and people who have never been discriminated against by the USDA will be receiving tens of thousands of dollars in cash and debt relief simply for having filed a false claim. By ignoring Pigford fraud, Congress has allowed the program to change from one designed to address black farmers' discrimination claims to one that now serves as a modern day slavery reparations program. The American people should be outraged by this vote and the new Congress should make an investigation of Pigford fraud a top priority.""

The website for Congressman King has the following press release:

"The unaccountable lame duck Congress is preparing to put Americans on the hook for an additional $1.15 billion in spending on a Pigford II settlement program that is rife with fraud despite the fact that current law caps the amount to be spent on these claims at $100 million," said King. "To make matters worse, the Democrats who temporarily control the Rules Committee will not even allow my amendment protecting taxpayers from this excessive and fraudulent spending to be presented on the House floor for a vote. By cutting off consideration of my amendment, and by refusing to investigate serious allegations of Pigford fraud prior to voting on legislation allocating an additional $1.15 billion to the program, the lame duck Congress is, in effect, enabling Pigford fraud and this calls for an investigation by the 112th Congress."

More information on the fraud involved in the Pigford project can be found at Big Government.  As America faces a debt crisis, fraud in government is one of the more painless ways to cut spending.  Let's hope the incoming Congress is willing to investigate the Pigford settlement program thoroughly.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy.  He posted an article at the group's website, Center For Security Policy, today about the START Treaty. 

Mr. Gaffney points out:

"The treaty would leave the Russians with thousands more nuclear weapons than the United States when their ten-to-one advantage in "tactical" arms is factored in.  Moreover, the Kremlin's tactical weapons are mostly modern. Ours are, on average, over thirty-years old; some actually rely on vacuum tubes.  Theirs are deployed forward near our allies and, in some cases, are being moved still closer in order to intimidate America's friends. Meanwhile, our tactical bombs, artillery shells, etc. are no longer deployed aboard Navy ships and many of them are kept in the United States, and therefore are of limited, if any, deterrent value." 

The recent behavior of the Russians should not convince us that they are partners for peace.  Mr. Gaffney further explains:

"New START will allow the Russians to have a say - and what amounts to a veto - over America's defenses against missile attack.   The Russians have said they will withdraw from the treaty if we improve the quantity or quality of our very limited anti-missile capabilities.  That threat will be more than enough to dissuade an Obama administration that has already cut, slowed and refused to deploy U.S. anti-missile programs. 

"Such an arrangement is especially crazy since other dangerous countries that are not parties to New START are building up their ability to attack us and our allies with ballistic missiles (see above).  For example, Iran will soon have a base for such missiles in Venezuela - a new "Cuban Missile Crisis" in the making.  Why should Moscow be able to decide whether we can protect the American people from those missiles?"

This is a treaty negotiated by a President who does not understand that a strong United States is an asset to peace.  When the neighborhood policeman is armed to the teeth, the crime rate in the neighborhood goes down.

Hopefully enough Senators will realize that the treaty as it currently stands is not a good deal for the United States and should not be approved.  This is a lame-duck Congress.  It needs to go home! 

Arutz Sheva posted an article earlier this month about some comments made by Professor Yisrael Aumann, Nobel Laureate and noted American-Israeli mathematician and game theorist.  The professor was speaking at Bar Ilan University.

The article explains:

"Aumann is also known for his view that the principles of game theory can be successfully applied to the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority."

The article also provided a link to an explanation of his theories written for the layman here.

The article briefly explains his theory:

""We think that posters with pigeons will bring about peace, but that isn't true and will only bring about war," added Aumann and cited the example of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, who handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for a guarantee that this would be the Nazi leader's final demand. "Hitler did not want to start a war, but Chamberlain brought him into the war by chasing peace," said Aumann decisively.

"In terms of the current situation between Israel and the PA, Aumann said that gestures towards the Arabs, such as the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, will ultimately bring about war and prove that applying pressure on Israel leads it to fold. "We are sending a signal of weakness to the other side and telling them that if they pressure they will get what they want. This is wrong.""

It is sad that we have to prepare for war in order to make peace, but sometimes strength is the only deterrent to war.  I shudder to think where Israel would be as a nation if the Arab nations around it did not suspect that Israel has nuclear weapons.  I shudder to think what will happen in the Middle East if Iran is successful in its nuclear program.  We need to pray for peace, but prepare for war.

On December 15th Investors.com posted an editorial about some of the decisions of the Eric Holder Justice Department.  There are definitely some things that need to be looked at.

The Justice Department has sued an Illinois school department for rejecting a Muslim teacher's request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca.

According to the article:

"The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion "required" her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim."

Doesn't the school district have the right to deny a teacher a three-week leave of absence? 

The article further reports:

"Attorney General Eric Holder is fulfilling a promise to pander to the special interests of Muslims. In June 2009, he pledged "a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community" that includes "robust enforcement" of "religious freedoms."

""We are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans" in the workplace, housing market and schools, he said, adding that he was making it "a top priority."

"Earlier this month, Holder spoke in San Francisco at the annual dinner of an anti-FBI group called the Muslim Advocates, whom he described as "partners in our work to promote tolerance.""

I am not in favor of discrimination against anyone, but there is a difference between discrimination and special privileges.  'Tolerance' should not be an excuse for enforcing laws differently for different people. 

The editorial lists the groups that Attorney General Holder has spoken to over the past two years.  This is not an Attorney General who represents the majority of Americans or who represents all Americans equally.  I don't expect him to be replaced as long as President Obama is in the White House, but I will be voting for a Republican President (regardless of who it is) in order to end Mr. Holder's term as Attorney General.  He has created a level of partisanship in the Justice Department that simply does not belong there.  The handling of the Black Panters Voting Intimidation Case and the suit against the Arizona immigration law were simply inexcusable.

If you read this site for the news and news links, you might want to skip this story.  It is rather personal, and it is simply an observation that I think applies to the Christmas season.

I am not always the smartest person in the room, and on some occasions, I am probably the dumbest (as any of us is capable of being).  The following story is true, and it is not one of my shining moments, but there is something to be learned from it.

I love Christmas, and I love Christmas earrings.  Last year I found a pair of Christmas earrings that said "Ho, Ho, Ho."  I was thrilled and couldn't wait to wear them.  First chance I had, I put them on.  I was going out with my husband that night and went to do a final check in the mirror.  To my shock and disappointment, the earrings said "Oh, Oh, Oh."  I figured that because they had words on them, they must be like shoes--there was a left and right one.  So I switched them and looked in the mirror again.  They still said, "Oh, Oh, Oh."  Then the light dawned.  A mirror is a reflection--not a true picture.

Now there is a point to this silly story (which really is true).  Every day we look into the mirror to comb our hair, put on make-up, shave, etc.  We really don't think about the fact that we are looking at a reflection--we are not looking at actual reality.  Most of the time that doesn't matter--sometimes it does.  We aren't even aware of the fact that our perspective is not real.

It's Christmas.  We are in a world of malls decorated with beautiful colored ornaments and beautifully decorated trees.  Everyone is buying gifts.  The perspective on television is all the things we absolutely have to do or have to make Christmas perfect.   Where is your perspective?  Is it a reflection of the mall, the television and the shopping or is it a reflection of the reason for the season?  We give gifts because God gave us the greatest gift of all.  Are you celebrating Jesus' birthday or are you celebrating something that you see around you?  Are you seeing "Oh, Oh, Oh, or have you reached the point where in faith you know the earrings do actually say "Ho, Ho, Ho" regardless of what you are seeing?

Merry Christmas!

One of the aspects of the recently passed Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is its attack on bake sales and pizza parties in schools.  In an article posted yesterday in the Washington Times by Gabriella Hoffman, Ms. Hoffman points out that Michelle Obama has a law degree--not a degree in nutrition. 

In the article Ms. Hoffman tells parents that they have to step up and take an active role in what their children eat:

"It is imperative that parents reassert their authority over their children's eating habits. When parents educate their kids about what they should and should not eat, there wouldn't be a need for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Parents are supposed to teach their kids how to eat healthy and stay in shape. They show them what kinds of food to eat and how to manage their portion sizes. They show their kids that a healthy lifestyle is incomplete unless they exercise. When parents neglect their duties, the government swoops in and replaces them--as evidenced by this bill. As a result, parents must set the precedence for healthy eating and exercise habits so the First Lady doesn't have to."

There is a webiste, My food. My choice!, which has been set up to oppose this bill.  The article reports:

"Since the First Lady waged war against bake sales and the like, My Food. My Choice! has vouched for an annual celebration of "National Bake Sale Month" each December. In order to promote free choice while exposing the absurdity of this law, group members intend to celebrate this occasion to show the importance of bake sales for schools under great economic duress."

It's time for parents to reassert their rights.

Remember the days when doing a good deed was a good thing?  Unfortunately, in some places that is only a memory.

On Friday, CBS News in Baltimore reported on two men who rescued a deer that had fallen into the Patapsco River on Thursday night. 

The article reports:

"We seen the deer going under," said Khalil Abusakran. "It couldn't maintain.  It was starting to freeze, and it was really getting bad."

The two men got a raft and rescued the deer.  After the rescue was complete, a natural resources police officer on the scene (who had watched the entire rescue) wrote both men a ticket. 

The article further states:

"The ticket itself doesn't check off any specific violation, just a $90 fine."

The men were told that the ticket was for not wearing life vests, although both are above the age where that is a requirement.

This is just wrong.  The way it should have happened is that the national resources police officer should have helped with the rescue and after he was off duty, they all went out for a beer.  That would have made much more sense.

The $ 1.1 tillion omnibus bill was defeated last week, and in its place Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that will fund the government through Tuesday.  The problem here is very simple--the current Congress wants to fund the government through 2011, thus totally negating the election that took place last month.  It's very simple--the current Congress does not want to relinquish power and go home!

Today's Wall Street Journal describes the discussion as follows:

"The president is pushing Congress for a yearlong resolution funding the government at current levels. That would put off the looming battle with resurgent Republicans to fund health care, but could also set back implementation of the program.

"But Republicans want a short-term funding bill so they can start the fight with the White House over government spending sooner rather than later."

An article in The Hill yesterday reports:

"A short-term bill that runs through February or March, whatever is agreed to in the Senate, leaves House Democrats with just about no choice but to vote for a bill that will give Republicans control over the CR's spending levels in the 112th Congress. 

""Members understand we are at the mercy of Senate Republicans," a Democratic leadership aide told The Hill tonight. 

"House Republicans are aiming to cut back spending to fiscal 2008 levels." 

Note to current Congress:  Elections have consequences.  Go home.  Have a Merry Christmas.

KOKO.Com in Oklahoma City reported this week on a bank that was being checked by the Federal Reserve to make sure it was meeting their requirments.  Unfortunately, the interpretation of the requirements stepped over the line.

According to the article:

"The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller's counter and buttons that say "Merry Christmas, God With Us." were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank's Internet site also had to be taken down."

The examiners believed that the symbols and Bible verse were in violation of Regulation B, "...the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication ... express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion."

Good grief!  Have we become so paranoid about believing in anything that this is what the bank examiners were focused on?  If you believe in diversity, you allow different expressions of belief--even if they are not the same as yours.  Would a teller be allowed to wear a headscarf to comply with her religion or would that be seen as discriminatory? 

It is the Christmas season.  Christmas has been celebrated in America since before we were America.  Christianity is the dominant religion of the country.  That is simply a fact.  Placing a Bible verse on the website was a choice of the bank.  If people are offended by that, they can bank elsewhere.  It seems to me that based on what has happened in banking over the past two years, the examiners have more to worry about than Bible verses or Christian symbols.

Power Line posted an article yesterday explaining why the START Treaty should not be passed during the lame-duck Congress. 

The article points out:

"Matthew Spalding and Anna Leutheuser review the record since the passage in 1933 of the Twentieth Amendment limiting lame duck sessions. Spalding and Leutheuser write: "The State Department maintains a comprehensive listing of all agreements and treaties currently in force. While considerable research would be required to establish definitively that no treaty has ever been ratified by a lame duck session, it is of note that current research efforts have yet to find any such treaty."

"Spalding and Leutheuser therefore conclude: "The ratification of New START by a lame duck Senate would not only ignore the message sent by voters in November but also break a significant precedent, consistent with the principle of consent, maintained by Presidents and Congresses since the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933."

"In short, what Obama et al. are doing is wrong. It is akin to the procedural shenanigans in which they engaged to ram Obamacare through the Senate after the election of Scott Brown earlier this year. Someone really ought to call them on it.

Aside from the obvious question of whether or not this Congress should ratify this treaty rather than leave it for the newly elected Congress, there is the issue of the treaty itself.  Andrew McCarthy posted an articel at National Review Online yesterday detailing the problems with the treaty. 

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

"Russia's strategic nukes will be reduced even if we do nothing, because Russia cannot keep up economically; the cap of 1,550 weapons works only against us. The impediment to modernization of our nuclear arsenal is not Russia; it is President Obama. He is demanding the bad New START agreement as his price for a modernization commitment that cannot be enforced. That's a net security loss. Better to elect a new president in two years for whom national defense is a priority."

I hope this Congress runs out of time before they get to approve this treaty.  I will be an impediment to peace--not a help.

The compromise worked out to maintain the current tax rates is a very mixed bag.  It is the product of compromise and thus will not make anyone totally happy.  Many Republicans who voted for it said that they did not like it, but were unwilling to risk the severe economic downturn that raising tax rates would have caused.  Many Democrats made the same statement.  The bill passed because it was probably less damaging than not passing it.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the tax bill debate, the omnibus spending bill was announced.  This $1.1 trillion piece of pork would have funded earmarks that were years old, funded the federal budget through 2011, and made sure Obamacare was properly funded during the coming year.  The omnibus spending bill would have successfully tied the hands of the incoming Congress in the area of cutting spending or defunding Obamacare.

Today's Daily Caller posted an article on what actually went on behind the scenes in the defeat of the omnibus spending bill.  It is a very interesting article, and I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article.

The article points out:

"[It was] 100 percent grassroots ... The American people took it down," said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn,

Oklahoma Republican.Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , agreed, though with a far less triumphant tone.

 

"Today's maneuvers demonstrate that the House and Senate Republican leadership from here on out should be considered a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tea Party," Manley said.

 

I guess it's all a matter of perspective.

Every ten years, the states redraw their Congressional districts according to the results of the national census.  Every state has its own process for the redistricting.  Some states create districts according to the political goals of whichever party is currently in power, and some states make an honest effort to redistrict in a non-partisan way.  In an effort to set up a fair process, Arizona created an Independent Redistricting Commission.  Unfortunately, that effort has not been totally successful.  The Verde Independent reported on December 14th that an applicant for the Commission may have been disqualified for religious reasons. 

According to the article:

"House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, said Monday the only comment made last week about the nomination of Tucsonan Christopher Gleason to the commission was by one screening panel member who pointed to Gleason's involvement with a Christian organization. That panelist, Louis Araneta, an attorney and former judge, questioned whether Gleason could separate issues of church and state.

The article stated the basis of the comment:

"Gleason said his civic activities include involvement 4-Tucson, part of Vision 360 for Tucson. He said the goal of the organization is "to serve as a catalyst to engage the Christian Community in the needs and dreams of Tucson to bring about spiritual renewal and prosperity to the glory of God' to make Tucson one of the most liveable cities in the world.

"Gleason said those words came directly from the organization's mission statement."

Since this information about the screening panel became public, the commission has denied that Mr. Gleason was turned down for the board due to his religion. 

Mr. Gleason commented on the decision:

""If this is what the (screening) commission is doing on a non-judicial appointment, what are they doing with judicial appointments?' Gleason asked. "Is there some sort of a non-religious litmus test, or non-faith litmus test for judicial appointments?'"

Religious discrimination is illegal.  I hope that if Mr. Cleason's involvement in a Christian organization is the reason he was disqualified from the Redistricting Commission that the person (or people) on the screening committee who was guilty of religious discrimination will be taken off the committee.

This article is based on two articles--one Associated Press story posted at Yahoo News and one posted at the Attleboro Massachusetts Sun Chronicle on Wednesday.

The article at Yahoo News reports that at least nineteen states have cut back on their funding of a program that provides free medicine to people with HIV. 

The article quotes an HIV patient:

""It's very frustrating to be stuck in this position at this age and not feel well and be wondering if I am going to die any differently than the people who I helped die in the '80s," said Stephen Farrar, 55, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who has HIV and is going on Florida's waiting list. "Am I going to be one of those people?""

Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the state is looking to cut back the state's healthcare program in order to cut the state budget deficit.  The article explains:

""Obviously something has to be done," state Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, said. Timilty said the original hope with universal coverage was that by giving everyone health insurance people lacking coverage would stop unnecessary trips to hospital emergency rooms and use less expensive doctor's visits for their care.

"The savings, however, have not materialized, he said."

Remember the quote from Margaret Thatcher--

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." (Margaret Thatcher)

Mrs. Thatcher knew what she was talking about.  It is becoming obvious that the government cannot meet its financial obligations to care for HIV patients or to provide health care for everyone.  The thing that we need to remember here is that left to its own resources, the private sector might be able to meet these needs.  There are many programs established by private pharmaceutical companies to provide drugs at discounted rates to people who cannot afford them.  If private companies are allowed to pursue research and reap the benefits of their labor, they can afford to be charitable.  However, we need to remember that charity is a voluntary thing--not something to be legislated. 

If we are to see one of the best medical systems in the world continue to be one of the best medical systems in the world, we need to remove the government from the equation.  Ultimately, that will be the only answer that will result in the best care for everyone.

Haaretz.com reported yesterday on a statement made by Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh at a rally to mark the 23rd anniversary of the founding of Hamas

According to the article, this was the statement:

""We say it with confidence as we said it five years ago when we formed our government, and we say it today: We will never recognize Israel," Haniyeh told a crowd in Gaza City numbering tens of thousands."

How would America have reacted if Mexico had refused to recognize the existence of Texas? 

The article further reports:

""This year the rally is different from previous rallies. We want to send a message to the world and to the Zionist enemy that Hamas movement is a powerful Islamic Palestinian movement which can never be uprooted," a rally organizer, who gave his name as Abu Hamza, said."

There is no answer to peace in the Middle East as long as the supporters of a Palestinian state refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist.  I am not opposed to a Palestinian state (although that was the purpose of establishing what was originally known as Trans-Jordan), but I am not willing to see the establishment of a state that not only harbors terrorists, but is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

My reaction to the statements made at this rally is to arm Israel to the teeth to make sure she can defend herself when necessary and to make sure Israel has the weaponry to be proactive in protecting her security.  Hamas is like a next-door neighbor who attempts to rob your house any time you go out!

Yesterday, Newsbusters posted an article about a recent poll the Washington Post took, but failed to report in its newspaper. 

Newsbusters reports:

"A new ABC-Washingtoon Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor.  ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday's World News, and Tapper added this was the health law's "lowest level of popularity ever."  But Tuesday's Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper--even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama's tax-and-umemployment-compensation deal has "broad bipartisan support.""

One of the foundations of a democracy is an unbiased media.  It is unfortunate that the current media does not take their job seriously enough to attempt to be unbiased in their reporting.

This article is based on two sources, CNS News and Heritage.org.  It is an understatement to say that I am furious at the proposed $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.  Last Christmas Congress voted on a very unpopular healthcare reform bill based on the theory that the voters would forget about the vote by November.  The voters didn't forget, and the voters sent many of the Congressmen who voted for the healthcare reform bill packing.  Well, they evidently did not learn from their mistake--now they want to pass this pork-laden spending bill in a lame-duck session.  Please remember that Congress had the option of passing a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels--there was no reason to introduce this spending bill instead.  Also keep in mind that this bill could not have been written overnight--it had to be in the works for some time.  Maybe that's why the Democrats were not concerned about not having passed a budget resolution--they had this up their sleeve.

The Heritage Foundation points out:

"But as bad as the earmarks are the spending increases are even worse. The bill adds $5.4 billion in new labor, education, and health spending including money for the failed Head Start program, the failed Race to the Top program, Pell Grants, and $1.25 billion in spending on Obamacare. No conservative who promised to repeal Obamacare can possibly support this bill."

The article at CNS News reports the comments of Senator John McCain:

"McCain said if Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid insisting to moving ahead with "this monstrosity," Republicans would ensu Americans are made aware of what it contains.

""I'll be joined by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to ensure that every single word of this bill is read aloud here on the Senate floor."

"He urged Democrats to "rethink their strategy" - to drop the spending bill designed to fund the government through 2011 in favor of a continuing resolution that will keep the government operating for 45 days, enabling the next Congress to take up the matter in the new year."

I am not a fan of John McCain, but he is absolutely right on this.

Please take note of any Congressman who supports this bill.  He needs to be voted out of office as soon as he comes up for re-election.  This is what the election in November was about.  Obviously, we will have to restate the same principles in 2012.  Let's do it!

The Hill is reporting that today the Democrats in the Senate introduced a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through fiscal year 2011, according to Senate GOP sources.   That is truly amazing.  First of all it is amazing that they would introduce an omnibus spending bill in a lame-duck session with days remaining rather than a continuing resolution.

There will be an article in tomorrow's Wall Street Journal commenting on the fact that the lame-duck session is asking for votes on both the START Treaty and the omnibus spending bill.  The Journal reports:

"The last-minute omnibus should also offend Senators who claim to have heard the voters on November 2. This jam-job is a substitute for the 12 individual spending bills that Congress was supposed to have passed during the summer. But for the first time in modern memory, Democrats never got around to passing a budget outline, much less specific spending bills. So now they want to rush one giant bill into law when no one is paying attention.

"Congress does have to fund the government, but it can do that with a simple continuing resolution that maintains the status quo for three months or so until the next Congress gets up and running. The catch is that this would mean no earmarks, and no riders for this or that special interest that Members on the Appropriations Committee can write into a formal spending bill. This includes 10 or so GOP Appropriators, some of whom are leaving the Senate and want a last hurrah. Their fellow Senators deserve the chance to offer amendments on the floor at the very least, assuming their staff members get the time to read 2,000 pages."

Last year the Democrats managed to push the healthcare bill through the House of Representatives on Christmas Eve when they thought no one was looking.  This year they are trying to push a pork-laden spending bill through the Senate in the hope that no one is looking.  Well, the American public is looking.  This is just nasty.  I would rather see the government have to shut down than to see this bill pass!

CBS News New York reported yesterday that New York Jets trainer Sal Alosi has been suspended without pay for the remainder of the season and fined an additional $25,000 for tripping Miami Dolphins cornerback Nolan Carroll on the sidelines during Sunday's game.

I like football, and I am a Jets fan, but there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.  Mr. Alosi has apologized, but there is still no excuse.  It's a game.  Just because it is a game, you do not have license to act like a petulant five-year old.  I realize that there have been other incidents of this type in the past, but I hope that suspending Mr. Alosi and fining him will put an end to this sort of behavior in the entire league.  It simply does not belong in the sport.

The American Thinker is reporting today that Japan has cut its corporate tax rate from 40 percent to 35 percent in order to spur economic growth.  According to the article:

"The DPJ-led government had already unveiled a "new growth strategy" under which it pledged to lower the 40 per cent effective corporation tax rate to a level closer to that of competitor nations - put at 25-30 per cent - during the next decade."

Dogs are more obedient than cats--I don't think anyone would argue with that--but cat's are smarter!  Today's UK Mail Online posted a story about a five-year old cat named Pepper who saved his owners home from being destroyed by a fire. 

Pepper sounds like a really neat cat.  Pepper has learned to open a window in the kitchen of his house to let himself out at night.  A fire broke out in his owners home while his owners were Christmas shopping.  Pepper simply opened the window and let himself out.  The smoke escaping from the opened window alerted the neighbors to the fact that there was a problem.  The fire department was called, the owners were called and told what was happening and Pepper and his owners still have a place to live.  Because the fire department was called, the damaged was limited to smoke damage mainly in the kitchen.

I hope Pepper has a really great Christmas.

CNS News reported today on the Presidential signing of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.  Just for the record, I fully approve of healthy, hunger-free kids--it's the law part I don't like.

The article reports:

"First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: "We can't just leave it up to the parents."" 

I must be incredibly old-fashioned, but I think you can leave it up to the parents.  If there is a problem with that, you might consider better educating the parents about nutrition.

The article explains:

"The law gives the federal government for the first time the authority to regulate the food sold at local schools, including in vending machines."

I understand that the generation growing up is overweight, but are we addressing the actual problem or is this just another federal power grab?  Would it make more sense for American consumers to begin reading the labels on the food they buy?  Would it make more sense to tell mothers to buy whole grain bread for their children?  Would it make more sense for the elementary schools who have eliminated recess to reinstate it?  Would it make more sense for the schools that are currently charging fees for students to participate in athletic programs to drop those fees so that more children can participate?  What is the gym class requirement in our high schools?  Does it involve sweat?  Can high schools put in an hour of exercise two or three times a week?

As you can see, there are many other ways to address the problem of obesity in our children.  I don't think a power grab is the right answer.

Today's Wall Street Journal is reporting that U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson has ruled on the consitutionality of the Obama Healthcare Law.

According to the Journal:

"In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law's requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.""

The question at hand is whether the government can force you to buy health insurance.  There have been two prior lower court rulings that upheld that right; this judge said it was not legal.  Obviously, this matter will be going to the Supreme Court.  Hopefully, the matter can be moved forward quickly and a decision reached.

The judge pointed out that the only part of the healthcare law that his ruling strikes down is the requirement for individuals to buy health insurance and the parts of the law related to that requirement. 

I really have trouble with the concept that the government can require you to purchase something.  Massachusetts has had a similar health insurance plan in place since 2006.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  Health insurance premiums have risen to the point that the state has had to step in to attempt to control the price increases.  This has resulted in insurance companies changing the policies and benefits available.  Requiring everyone to have insurance has not been successful.  Emergency rooms lines in hospitals have not gotten shorter as the people who supported this bill claimed they would--they are the same or longer. 

The biggest problem with the requirement to buy insurance is the requirement that insurance companies cannot turn anyone down.  What has happened in Massachusetts is that people have paid the fine for not having insurance until they needed major medical care.  At that point they took out insurance, had the necessary procedures down, then dropped the insurance and went back to paying the fine.  This has created serious problems for the insurance companies.  What happens in this case is that the state collects the fines paid for not being insured, so the insurance company has no way to recoup the large, sudden expenditure needed to cover the 'new' patient.  Over a very short period of time, this is guaranteed to put private insurance companies out of business.  

Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why we call it 'The Present'."

                  Eleanor Roosevelt

The discussions on the bill to keep the current tax rates are getting very interesting.  The orginial deal negotiated with President Obama is dead.  The new deal has everything in it except the kitchen sink, and that's probably there somewhere in the small print.  There is a tremendous amount of anger on both sides of the political spectrum (although for very different reasons).

On Friday, CNS News reported that the Senate won't hold hearings before they vote on the Obama tax bill.  The bill is expected to be brought to the floor next week.

According to the article:

"...the bill also includes provisions that extend special tax breaks for autom racetracks and movie and television producers and that transfer revenues derived from federal excise taxes on rum to the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which use the money for, among other things, subsidizing the local production of rum."

On Friday, CNS News also reported some of the details of the rum subsidy.  According to the article:

"...Section 755 of the bill, which can be found on the 68th page of the 74-page bill.

"The provision extends so-called "cover-over" payments that the federal government has been making to the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Essentially, the program returns nearly all of the excise-tax revenue that the federal government collects on the sale of rum produced in these two U.S. territories.

"Currently, federal law charges an excise tax on all liquor produced and sold in the United States, including rum from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

"The special provision in the bill returns to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands $13.25 of the $13.50 per gallon excise tax on the rum produced there. In fiscal year 2008, those payments amounted to $371 million for Puerto Rico and almost $100 million for the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to a Congressional Research Service report."

I have said this before.  A simple bill exchanging a continuation of the current tax rates for an extension of unemployment benefits is not wonderful, but acceptable.  A bill that includes every spending idea Congress can think of before the end of the year is not acceptable.  I hope this bill goes down in flames.  The Republicans can clean up the mess when they take over Congress.  If they fail to do so, they can expect to be voted out of office in November 2012.

One of the duties of the President of the United States is to appoint people to positions within the government.  Since theoretically no one person has a whole lot of authority, that really shouldn't be too much of a big deal.  Well, sometimes it is. 

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about the recent elections at Delta Airlines where the flight attendants of the company decided to remain a union-free shop.  After a five-week campaign, the flight attendants voted 9,544 to 8,778 to remain union free.  Unfortunately that was not the end of the story.  The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) has alleged that Delta interfered with the election by pressuring the flight attendants to vote against the union.  Delta denies the charges.  Now the union is asking the National Mediation Board (NMB) for a revote.  Well, let's look at who President Obama has placed on the NMB--two of the panels three members are former airline union officials.

The article concludes:

"Delta workers have been courageous in their repeated attempts to resist this tide and remain masters of their own fate; unfortunately, the corrupt bargain between Big Labor and liberal politicians is conspiring to strangle their democratically expressed wishes.  It is outrageous that a federal board charged with resolving labor disputes is comprised of former union officials.  How can two former airline-union leaders possible adjudicate the Delta election in a dispassionate manner?  How is it possible that Puchala and Hoglander (the two board members) will not be forced to recuse themselves in llight of their obvious loyalties?"

Union leaders have become the new 'greedy robber barrons' of the past.  It is dangerous to have them so tightly woven into the fabric of our government.

In November of 2010 a message was sent to Congress.  Some of it came from a group known as the Tea Party and some of it came from simple, ordinary Americans who had never been active in politics before.  In some cases, these were the same people.  The message was pretty basic--it had three parts--stop the runaway spending, get back to laws based on the U. S. Constitution, and stop taking so much of my income away from me in the form of taxes and fees.  There were many variations, additions, and other aspects of this message, but those three points were at the core.  Well, here we are five or six weeks later, what are the results of the message?  Both parties have the same leadership in Washington, and the current activity in Congress appears to be more of what was happening before the message was sent.  I guess they haven't gotten the message yet.  The question is, "Will they get it in January?"  The answer is, "I don't know."

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article entitled, "I Didn't Vote For A Christmas Tree."  Mr. Hinderaker states:

"For several years, I have assumed that my taxes, and those of many millions of Americans, would skyrocket in 2011. So when I first learned the terms of the compromise between the President and the Republican leadership--most of the Bush-era tax rates made permanent, tax rates for upper-income taxpayers extended for two years, a one-year two percent payroll tax holiday, long a favorite conservative policy--I thought, and wrote, that it was an excellent deal for conservatives."

I agree with him.  I didn't think it was an excellent deal, but it was a deal I could live with--everyone got something and no one got everything.  Unfortunately the people currently serving in Congress were not content to let the original agreement stand. 

Mr. Hinderaker cites an Associated Press article posted at Breitbart.com that describes what has happened as turning the tax-cut bill into a Christmas tree with ornaments.  Some of the ornaments listed:

"The tax deal, reached behind the scenes and still informal, now includes ethanol subsidies for rural folks, commuter tax breaks for their cousins in the cities and suburbs and wind and solar grants for the environmentalists--all aimed at winning votes, particularly from reluctant Democrats. ...

"Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.

"For urban lawmakers, there's a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year. Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.

"The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama."

There are two things that can happen at this point.  This now horrible tax bill can be defeated (as it should be) and all of our taxes can go up drastically in January.  At that point, the first business of the new Congress should be to pass a tax law making current tax rates permanent, instituting low estate taxes (the money has already been taxed at least once), and extending unemployment benefits for six months if needed.  No pork allowed--no earmarks allowed.  If the leadership in Congress does not change its ways, it should be voted out--in both parties.  The Republicans need to understand that if they do not start listening to the American voters, there will be a third party--but it will be the Republican party.  The energy in this election on the Republican side came from the Tea Party.  The Republicans had best remember that.

The other option is that Congress can pass the original bill with no add ons.  According the public opinion polling that has been done, that would also be acceptable to most Americans. 

There is no third option. 

This article is based on an old newspaper article, but it caught my eye when Michael Yon put up a related story on Facebook.  On August 11 of this year the New York Times posted an article about something called a geotag.  A geotag is a bit of data embedded in a photograph that provides the longitude and latitude of where a photo is taken.

The article reports:

"Security experts and privacy advocates have recently begun warning about the potential dangers of geotags, which are embedded in photos and videos taken with GPS-equipped smartphones and digital cameras. Because the location data is not visible to the casual viewer, the concern is that many people may not realize it is there; and they could be compromising their privacy, if not their safety, when they post geotagged media online."

This is particularly significant to members of our armed forces serving overseas who may post pictures online for their families at home. 

The article also points out how posting pictures on social networks showing expensive cars or possessions can put you at risk for theft:

"Moreover, since multimedia sites like Twitter and YouTube have user-friendly application programming interfaces, or A.P.I.'s, someone with a little knowledge about writing computer code can create a program to search for geotagged photos in a systematic way. For example, they can search for those accompanied with text like "on vacation" or those taken in a specified neighborhood.

""Any 16 year-old with basic programming skills can do this," said Gerald Friedland, a researcher at the International Computer Science Institute at the University of California, Berkeley. He and a colleague, Robin Sommer, wrote a paper, "Cybercasing the Joint: On the Privacy Implications of Geotagging," which they presented on Tuesday at a workshop in Washington during the Advanced Computing Systems Association's annual conference on security.

"The paper provides three examples of so-called cybercasing that use photos posted on Twitter and Craigslist and a homemade video on YouTube.

"By looking at geotags and the text of posts, Mr. Sommer said, "you can easily find out where people live, what kind of things they have in their house and also when they are going to be away.""

Social networking is a great thing--I truly appreciate being able to turn on my computer and see current pictures of my grandchildren.  However, like anything else, social networks need to be used carefully and cautiously so that people with less-than-honorable intentions do not take advantage of those of us who are simply sharing family pictures.

On Wednesday, the Washington Times posted an article reporting that part of the spending bill passed by Congress included a ban on detainee-transfer funds (to transfer inmates at Guantanamo to America). 

The article reports that the comprehensive spending bill was not really what either Democrats or Republicans wanted:

"The spending bill, which includes wide-ranging new regulations on food safety and shifts money to Democratic priorities, even as it also blocks the Guantanamo Bay transfers, is already two months overdue as Democrats have struggled to find ways to balance their policy preferences with the deteriorating fiscal condition of the government."

The Democrats are anxious to pass as many bills as they can before the Republicans take control of the House.

Meanwhile, there are some numbers recently released that show the need for Guantanamo.  On Tuesday the Washington Times posted an article about a recent report on the number of Guantanamo detainees that have returned to terrorism after being released:

"The report, made public Tuesday, stated that out of a total of 598 (Guantanamo) detainees released as of October, 150 were confirmed or suspected of "reengaging in terrorist or insurgent activities after transfer," the two-page unclassified summary said."

Traditionally prisoners of war are held until the war is over.  We are in an awkward position here because technically the prisoners at Guantanamo are not prisoners of war--they did not wear uniforms, and they do not represent a country.  Chances are the war on terror will continue for at least one generation.  What do we do with these people?  There has been some talk recently about colonizing Mars with senior citizens.  What about with Guantanamo detainees?  The British did it with Australia.  Just thinking.

This chart is from National Review Online's The Corner (via Mark Levin).  The bottom number on this chart is how much disposable income each earner has after the government gets done with him.  This is disturbing.

More data here:

The article concludes:

"Maybe President Obama and Mr. Krugman should direct some of their attention to this problem rather than spending so much of their time complaining that the rich don't get soaked enough." 

It looks to me as if the rich are getting pretty well soaked as it is.

Larry Elder posted an article at Townhall.com citing some information in the Wikileaks documents leaked that puts a lie to the Democratic campaign slogan, "Bush lied, people died."  Evidently, according to Wikileaks, President Bush didn't lie, and when the information came out that he hadn't lied, somehow the American press forgot to report it.

According to the article:

"Wired magazine's contributing editor Noah Shachtman -- a nonresident fellow at the liberal Brookings Institution -- researched the 400,000 WikiLeaked documents released in October. Here's what he found: "By late 2003, even the Bush White House's staunchest defenders were starting to give up on the idea that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But WikiLeaks' newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction (emphasis added). ... Chemical weapons, especially, did not vanish from the Iraqi battlefield. Remnants of Saddam's toxic arsenal, largely destroyed after the Gulf War, remained. Jihadists, insurgents and foreign (possibly Iranian) agitators turned to these stockpiles during the Iraq conflict -- and may have brewed up their own deadly agents."

"In 2008, our military shipped out of Iraq -- on 37 flights in 3,500 barrels -- what even The Associated Press called "the last major remnant of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program": 550 metric tons of the supposedly nonexistent yellowcake. The New York Sun editorialized: "The uranium issue is not a trivial one, because Iraq, sitting on vast oil reserves, has no peaceful need for nuclear power. ... To leave this nuclear material sitting around the Middle East in the hands of Saddam ... would have been too big a risk."

"Now the mainscream media no longer deem yellowcake -- the WMD Bush supposedly lied about -- a WMD. It was, well, old. It was degraded. It was not what we think of when we think of WMD. Really? Square that with what former Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean said in April 2004: "There were no weapons of mass destruction." MSNBC's Rachel Maddow goes even further, insisting, against the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that "Saddam Hussein was not pursuing weapons of mass destruction"!

"Bush, hammered by the insidious "Bush Lied, People Died" mantra, endured one of the most vicious smears against any president in history. He is owed an apology."

I'm not holding my breath. 

If you read this blog on a regular basis, you understand that I am a strong supporter of Israel.  I believe Israel has a right to exist as a free nation with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital.  I don't want to see a Palestinian state until that moment when the future leaders of such a state renouce their previous goal of wiping Israel off the planet (and stop sending rockets into Israel aimed at civilian populations).  There is an old expression, "If all the Arab nations around Israel gave up their weapons and declared peace, nothing would change.  If Israel gave up her weapons and declared peace, she would be destroyed in a matter of minutes."  I think that says it all.

Reuters reported Tuesday:

"President Barack Obama brokered the direct talks that were relaunched in September but broke down over the issue of settlements built on captured land that Palestinians seek for a state.

""We reached the conclusion this is not the time to renew direct negotiation by renewing the moratorium," a senior U.S. diplomat told reporters in Israel, ending weeks of intense U.S. diplomacy aimed at forging a settlement deal."

When I read this, I was encouraged.  We need to realize that Israel is a sovereign nation and has a right to build settlements anywhere within its country where it chooses to build, and I thought we have finally realized that.  Well, not so fast.

The article further reports on the progress of the United States' quest for peace in the Middle East:

""We're not throwing in the towel at all. Our objective is still a framework agreement ... (but) we are going to look for a different mechanism," the (U.S.) official said."

What might that different mechanism be?  There are some clues near the end of the article:

"Palestinian officials have said they may seek to declare statehood unilaterally in the occupied West Bank if negotiations with Israel foundered.

"Three Latin American nations -- Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay -- declared recognition of a Palestinian state at the weekend, drawing Israeli condemnation."

Normally I would celebrate the birth of a new nation.  However, I cannot celebrate the birth of a new terrorist state.  There is no doubt in my mind that the new state of Palestine would be a center for people who are opposed to the existence of the state of Israel.  Recognizing a Palestinian state at this time is not a move toward peace--it is a move toward the destruction of Israel.  It is a bad move.

President Obama negotiated a deal with the Republicans regarding the current tax rates.  The President definitely has a horse in this race because he wants to be a two-term President.  Many of the Democrats currently voting in Congress will not be there in January, so it could be said that they don't have a horse in the race.  But having or not having a horse in this race is not a qualification for voting on the issue.  It is generally understood that if a deal is not reached on this matter and taxes go up in January, the economy will stumble badly.

What is the problem?  It is a philosophical difference of opinion.  Regarding the estate tax, hasn't the money that anyone inherits been taxed at least once already?  If it is the form of dividends and certain other assets, it has already been taxed twice!  Unless you support redistribution of wealth, there is no reason to tax it again.  Isn't part of the joy of being a parent being able to leave your children something to help them on their way?

Whatever the sticking point, The Hill is reporting that the House Democratic Caucus has rejected the deal that President Obama has brokered with the Republicans on taxes.  This is a non-binding resolution.  What the Democrats want is to renegotiate the tax deal President Obama negotiated with the Republicans.

The thing to remember here is that what is being discussed here is not a tax cut--all it would do is keep the tax rates the same.  If you are not changing the tax rates, how can the Democrats complain that it would be too expensive?  Well, actually it's the compromise parts of the bill that will actually cost money.  All the Republicans wanted to do was extend the current tax rates, the President added the additional thirteen months of unemployment insurance--that costs money.  The President also negotiated to add the two percent cut in payroll taxes--that also costs money.  Extending the current tax rates does not cost money--it does not change anything.  The Republicans agreed to spend the money to keep the current tax rates; the Democrats added spending in order to allow the Republicans to keep the current tax rates.  Everyone played the roles they were expected to play. 

Pop up some popcorn and stay tuned.  This is going to be interesting!

John Stossel at Townhall.com posted an interesting article about the relationship between poverty and private property rights.  In his artice he mentions the work of Hernando de Soto.who has focused on a revolutionary concept that is having repercussions throughout the world's poor countries: the lack of formal property rights is the source of poverty in poor countries.

Mr. Stossel quotes Mr. de Soto:

""To get an address, somebody's got to recognize that that's where you live. That means ... you've a got mailing address. ... When you make a deal with someone, you can be identified. But until property is defined by law, people can't ... specialize and create wealth. The day they get title (is) the day that the businesses in their homes, the sewing machines, the cotton gins, the car repair shop finally gets recognized. They can start expanding."

"That's the road to prosperity. But first they need to be recognized by someone in local authority who says, "This is yours." They need the rule of law. But many places in the developing world barely have law. So enterprising people take a risk. They work a deal with the guy on the first floor, and they build their house on the second floor."

We totally take our property rights for granted.  Mr. de Soto further explains:

"It's not very different from when you Americans started going west, (but) Americans at that time were absolutely conscious of what the rule of law was about," de Soto said.

"Americans marked off property, courts recognized that property, and the people got deeds that meant everyone knew their property was theirs. They could then buy and sell and borrow against it as they saw fit.

"This idea of a deed protecting property seems simple, but it's powerful. Commerce between total strangers wouldn't happen otherwise. It applies to more than just skyscrapers and factories. It applies to stock markets, which only work because of deed-like paperwork that we trust because we have the rule of law."

The obvious conclusion here is that enforcing property rights and the rule of law breeds prosperity.  Hopefully we can remember those two things in the coming years.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article this morning about a discussion between outgoing Senator Judd Gregg and Andrea Mitchell about paying for tax cuts.  Senator Gregg points out that the concept of 'paying for tax cuts' assumes that all money belongs to to government and that there is a cost to letting people keep the money they earn. 

The article references a New York Times article from yesterday:

"What the Times left out was the fact that the top-earning 1% currently pays more than 38% of all income taxes.

"Had the tax cuts expired, the seethingly evil top 1% would've pitched in just $0.25 of every new tax dollar (per the Times' analysis), ratcheting down their 38% share.  While taxes would've gone up for everyone, the relative burden on the wealthiest would've eased.

"The "savings," then (a creative choice of words, given that we're talking about maintaining the status quo), are indeed disproportionately shared by the highest earners.  But not nearly as disproportionately as they share in the existing tax burden."

Every time a Congressman talks about paying for tax cuts, we need to ask him whose money it is.  It is also important to note that our current tax system taxes income--it does not tax wealth.  I suppose it is just a coincidence that Congress has a higher percentage of millionaires than the general population.  Their wealth is not taxed--only their income.  We need to keep that in mind as they are trying to impose higher taxes on the rest of us.

Heritage.org posted an article on Tuesday about some of the antics currently going on in the outgoing Congress. 

The article points out that the compromise points the Republicans agreed to in the tax deal are bad policy (reinstating the death tax (at 35% with a $5 million threshold), 13 more months of non-offset unemployment benefits, and a temporary 2 percentage point reduction in the payroll tax to replace the failed "Make-Work-Pay" stimulus tax policy). 

The article states:

"Heritage has long opposed any return of the death tax, which is bad for small business and wrong on principle. The unemployment benefits are not only bad for job growth but increase spending at a time when we need to be reducing it, and, as economists have long recognized, perpetuate long-term unemployment. As for temporary tax holidays, they have proven to be completely ineffective."

The article further points out:

"Congressional Democrats were busy plotting a last-gasp massive spending surge back on Capitol Hill. Written by the Senate Democratic majority in backrooms, a draft omnibus spending is circulating that will fund all federal government agencies not just through fiscal year (FY) 2011 but into 2012 as well. Heritage Foundation Distinguished Fellow Ernest Istook details the spending spree:

• Handcuffs the ability of newly elected Representatives and Senators to de-fund Obamacare
• Restricts the new Congress's leverage to rescind unused "stimulus" and TARP spending
• Has the outgoing Congress dictate spending for more than the usual one year
• Bypasses the normal appropriations process of public committee votes, floor debates, and the ability to offer amendments on the floor of the House and Senate."

First of all--is it legal for this Congress to fund the government into 2012?  Are we in danger of a government shutdown as a result of this reach? 

I don't like to admit this, and I guess it isn't really news, but I simply do not trust the Democrats in charge right now.  They have bent the rules too many times to suit their own purpose with no regard for public opinion or what is best for the country.  I see no reason to believe that their current behavior is any different than their past behavior.  Remember that healthcare was pushed through by means of some serious manipulation of the rules.  I realize that the new Congress does not take office until January, but they need to exert their influence now.  As my husband recently pointed out, in the time between election day 2008 and Inauguration Day 2009, President Obama created the official seal of the "President-elect" and began to attempt to influence public policy.  The Congress-elect needs to follow his example!

The following entry appeared on Hugh Hewitt's Blog this afternoon.  This is directly quoted from Mr. Hewitt's blog.  I am posting it because I believe it represents the ideas of one group of the voters.  If your local radio stations do not carry Mr. Hewitt's show, you can find it at the Townhall Radio connection at Townhall.com from 6 to 9 pm Eastern Time.  He is well worth listening to.

I will spend a lot of time on the program today discussing "the deal," but as Rush pointed out on his show this past hour, the GOP could have gotten so much more.  President Obama would never have allowed taxes to go up on the middle class.  Never.

What the D.C. GOP failed to grasp and what is now the source of anger among its supporters beyond the terms themselves is that for the past two years the D.C. GOP has been complaining bitterly and appropriately about being excluded from the process of governing.  No sooner does the D.C. GOP get welcomed into the governing councils of the Beltway but they in turn exclude the people who sent them there, and not just the scores of newly elected representatives and senators who were not consulted on this "deal," but the millions of people who worked and contributed to the victory of November 2. 

All it would have taken was a a request for input on various terms from the Republican negotiators to the new members of Congress and an invitation to the public to weigh in.  But the old guard took it upon themselves to decide for the rest of the country what should be in the deal, and in so doing reverted to the form that brought about the Gang of 14 and immigration fiasco.

If the GOP intends to wield their new power the way that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid did over the past two years, they will be shocked at how quickly the public deserts them.  Springing this deal on their new colleagues and their supporters without any opportunity to comment on it is the GOP version of refusing to attend townhall meetings.  Simply astonishing.


UPDATE: President Obama referred to the GOP as hostage takers just now, and is referring to the polls as on his side.  Chuck Todd's question about whether the president will now cave again and again leads to the president's declaration that he hopes the GOP tests him.  He points out that there are a "whole bunch of things the Republicans are giving up."  His additional statements that "I am happy to have that battle" and "I am happy to be tested over the next several months over our ability to negotiate with the Republicans" signal that Obama cannot again disappoint the left.  The GOP had one moment of leverage, and they used it for the minimum they could have had, and they did so in such a way as to cut out their new colleagues and their strongest supporters.

I don't totally agree with this viewpoint, but I can understand where he is coming from.  I think what the Republicans feared was something similar to what happened when the government was actually shut down during the Clinton administration and the Republicans were blamed.  I think the fear on the part of Republicans is of again moving too fast to implement their agenda (particularly with a Democrat president in the White House).

Balancing the federal budget sounds scary.  From what members of Congress say, we will all have to give up everything in order to balance the budget.  I realize that is an extreme statement, but it does seem as if some members of Congress are trying to turn the American people against the idea of balancing the budget.  Well, one person has come up with an almost painless solution.

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article by Jimmie Bise, Jr., on what it would actually take to balance the budget.  It is one of the most sensible plans I have heard.  He cites a plan put forth by Nick Gillespie and Veronica de Rugy called "The 19 Percent Solution". 

According to the article at Hot Air, this is the essence of the plan:

"A balanced budget based on 19 percent of GDP would mean $1.3 trillion in cuts over the next decade, or about $129 billion annually out of ever-increasing budgets averaging around $4.1 trillion. Note that these are not even absolute cuts, but trims from expected increases in spending."

The article also points out the year-to-year growth of federal spending.  From 2001 to 2002: 5 percent, 2002 to 2003: 4.5 percent, 2003 to 2004: 4.3 percent, 2004 to 2005: 4.2 percent, 2005 to 2006: 11.1 percent, 2006 to 2007: 3.6 percent, 2007 to 2008: 3.4 percent, 2008 to 2009: 6.5 percent, 2009 to 2010: 13.9 percent, 2010 to 2011: 5.3 percent.  The article points out that the average increase per year from 2001 to 2011 was 6.1 percent.

The article suggests:

"Are our leaders willing and able to identify and cut just $25 billion in waste and excess out of more than $700 billion in non-defense discretionary spending? Is reducing the $714 billion the Department of Defense received in 2010 by a paltry $25 billion impossible? Can Medicare and Medicaid, two programs that are infamous for waste and fraud and cost well over $720 billion in 2010, find $35 billion in efficiencies? The specific cuts should be open to negotiation, but the historical record shows that the available level of government revenue is fixed."

This plan definitely needs to be added to the discussion.

Today's Wall Street Journal just posted an article on the tax deal reached between the Democrats and Republicans in Congress.  It definitely is a compromise, but I am not sure that the 'true believers' on either side of the spectrum will be happy with it.

Many conservatives felt that the Republicans should have held out for a permanent extension of the current tax rates--after all, those tax rates have been in effect for ten years.  Many Democrats believe that the tax rates for high income earners should be raised regardless of the recession. 

For me, there are a few problems with the compromise reached.  To extend unemployment benefits for thirteen months seems to be excessive to me.  Does the Obama Administration have that little faith in the number of jobs being created in the next year?  It bothers me to see people collecting unemployment insurance for three years.  To me that creates a disincentive to work.  Another problem is the uncertainty that only extending the current tax rates for two years creates.  Businesses need to know their tax rates more than two years into the future in order to plan expansion.  We need permanent tax rates.

There is another problem with the reaching of this compromise.  As soon as this legislation is passed, Congress will be able to move on to other things--such as the DREAM Act and the START Treaty.  A lame duck session is not the place to discuss either of those items.  If they were that important, they could have been done in the last two years while Democrats  had control of Congress.

There is a mixed blessing in this compromise.  Included in the compromise was a 2% cut in the payroll tax for workers.  This will put more money in people's pockets, and thus will stimulate the economy.  Ironically, that may make Barack Obama a two-term President!

The thing to remember here is that it's our money--not Washington's.  Government is too big, and we are paying too much for it.  We will never lower the deficit until we cut the size and spending of government.  The deficit is not a revenue problem--it is a spending problem!

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner last week about the new Pentagon report on Don't Ask Don't Tell.  The report gives the impression that changing the policy concerning homosexuals openly serving in the military is no big deal to those currently serving in the military.  Well, not so fast.  When you examine the numbers more closely, you discover that there is a sharp divide between the opinions of those who serve (or have served) in combat and those who have not.  Fifty-nine percent of the Marines who have served in combat say that changing the current policy would have a negative effect. 

The article concludes:

"According to the study, 70 percent of respondents are now or have been deployed, and 83 percent of them have been in a combat zone or an area where they received hostile fire pay.  There is simply no way to argue that they overwhelmingly support repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell.

"Bur repeal is what the president and many lawmakers want.  And civilian control of the military is a bedrock principle of the U.S. government.  If the president and Congress order service members to do something, then that's what they are going to do.  But don't pretend they all think it's a good idea."

We need someone in Congress to remember that serving in the military is a privilege--not a right.  There are many reasons why a person might be told that he (or she) could not serve.  The military is there to protect and defend our country--not to be a social experiment. 

The Washington Examiner posted a portion of a speech made by Lt. Gen. John F. Kelly delivered in St. Louis on Nov. 13, four days after his son, Robert M. Kelly, was killed in Afghanistan.  The part of his speech that the Washington Examiner published is not about his son--it is about two amazingly courageous American Marines who served their country in Afghanistan.  They were standing guard duty when they were killed.  Please follow the link and read the entire article.  It is amazing.

There is one paragraph I would like to share here:

"I (General Kelly) traveled to Ramadi the next day and spoke individually to a half-dozen Iraqi police all of whom told the same story. They all said, "We knew immediately what was going on as soon as the two Marines began firing." The Iraqi police then related that some of them also fired, and then ran for safety just before the explosion. All survived. Many were injured, some seriously. As one of the Iraqis explained, they had merely done what any "normal man" would do - run for his life. "What I didn't know until then," he said, "and what I learned at that very instant, was that Marines are not normal." Choking past the emotion, he said, "Sir, in the name of God no sane man would have stood there and done what they did. They saved us all.""

God bless the families of those two amazing young men.

As I stated in a previous article, the pay freeze on federal workers is a sham (see rightwinggranny.com).  It is simply a non-adjustment of the Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)--it does not effect any other pay increases.  The freezing of the COLA was expected anyway after there was no COLA allowance given to Social Security this year as well as last year.  There is no federal pay freeze.  That's what makes the story at The Hill's Blog Briefing Room so funny.

Barney Frank stated this week that exceptions may have to be made to President Barack Obama's proposed pay freeze in order to effectively implement the Wall Street reform bill.  What that means is that he wants exemptions to the pay freeze if regulatory agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CTFC), can show they are needed to hire the appropriate talent.  I would like to point out that federal workers already make about 30 to 40 per cent (including benefits) more than private sector workers.  Why in the world would you have to exempt them from the pay freeze?  Also, this is the man who constantly complains about what Wall Street people are being paid--don't companies have to pay enough to attract the talent?  You can't have it both ways Representative Frank. 

According to the article at The Hill:

"In July, SEC Chairman Mary Schapiro announced that her agency intends to hire 374 new employees in 2011. She also indicated that to meet the requirements set out in the Dodd-Frank bill, the agency will need to hire up to 800 staff in total."

This is called growing the government.  The SEC now has to hire 800 new people.  The taxpayers have to pay for those jobs.  This is where the deficit comes from.  The problem is not low tax revenue--it is high spending. 

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told the press that that she would run the most ethical and honest Congress in history.  It doesn't seem as if it has worked out that way.  Charlie Rangel has been censured for something any other American would have gone to jail for (I am told that the reason he did not go to jail for tax evasion is that as soon as the New York Times released the information on his taxes, he contacted the IRS and paid up.)  At any rate, at least the House of Representatives acknowledged that he had done something wrong. 

Now we have the case of Maxine Waters.  This is a puzzling situation.  Obviously, she would want to get her hearing over with before the Republicans take over the House of Representatives.  That's not being partisan--that's just being smart.  There is so much political animosity in Washington today, I can't blame her for wanting to get this over with while the Democrats are still in the majority.  So why the delay?

According to LibertyCentral.org, the investigation into the activities of Ms. Waters was suspended in October when investigators of the House Ethics Committee discovered a critical piece of information - an E-mail from Waters's Chief of Staff - that had not been turned over to committee investigators.  Now according to the Washington Post, the House Ethics Committee is looking into the reasons that the House Financial Services Committee did not fully comply with the request to turn over all the documents relative to the investigation of Ms. Waters.

According to the article:

"The e-mail in question, sent by Waters chief of staff Mikael Moore, asked four aides to Frank for more information on the progress of legislation meant to rescue large banks in the 2008 financial meltdown. The top aide, who is Waters's grandson, proposed legislative wording changes that ultimately ensured the minority-owned bank in which Waters's husband had a financial investment, OneUnited, received federal assistance."

I guess I am a little cynical, but I have no doubt that a large part of bailout, stimulus, and TARP money went to friends and supporters of Barack Obama.  I think all government bailout programs illustrate why we should not give any more money to Washington than we absolutely have to!  I do think that one of the things that will happen when the Republicans are sworn in in January is that a lot of the wheeling and dealing that has been going on with taxpayer money will be looked into and investigated if necessary.  It won't be fun for anyone, but I think it is necessary.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that Judicial Watch had used the Freedom of Information Act to obtain documents from the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) relating to a series of three Medicare television ads featuring Andy Griffith.  The ads were considered misleading by a number of press outliets including FactCheck.org.

The article points out that $3,184,000 of taxpayer money was used to produce and air the advertisements in order to educate the people who depend on Medicare about the changes in Medicare as a result of Obamacare.  Unfortunately, the information given in the ads was not true!

It is also interesting that the ads were produced by someone who has in the past worked on the campaigns of Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Al Gore.  I'm glad they chose an objective person for the campaign!

As a percentage of the overall federal budget, $3,184,000 may not seem like a lot of money, but to spend taxpayers' money on a publicity campaign to support legislation that is unpopular with the voters just seems wrong.  We do not have the extra money to spend right now, and the ads were not a good way to spend money at all.

Investors.com posted an article on Friday about the economic ignorance surrounding the debate on extending the current tax rates. 

According to the article:

"(Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod) Brown ripped into GOP Rep. Eric Cantor, saying he "either failed English class or failed logic class or failed history class because these tax cuts for the rich that Bush did twice ... resulted in very little economic growth. We saw only 1 million jobs created in the Bush years, 22 million created in the Clinton years, when we reached a balanced budget with a fairer tax system.""

This simply is not true.  The article reports:

"From 2002, the last year before the cuts, to 2007, the last year before the financial meltdown, the real economy expanded by $1.77 trillion, or 15.2%. "Very little" growth? Jobs increased by 7.77 million, business investment surged 38%, and personal net worth soared 56%."

Tax cuts work--they stimulate economic growth.  The article also points out that giving President Clinton the credit for balancing the budget is a bit disingenuous.  The budget is controlled by Congress--not the President.  The Republican Congress is the 1990's passed spending cuts, welfare reform,and cut capital gains taxes--that's what balanced the budget.

The article concludes:

"If we want a strong expansion, business investment must grow. It won't as long as Brown and his colleagues continue to believe that extending jobless benefits to boost consumption, and raising taxes on the "rich" would create economic activity."

If we truly want to see the economy grow, we need to cut spending and taxes.  It will be interesting to see if this Congress has the nerve to do this.

CNS News reported yesterday that Army, Air Force, and Marine chiefs told the Senate Armed Services Committee on Friday that now is not the time to change the military policy known as Don't Ask, Don't Tell. 

The article reports:

""Based on what I know about the very tough fight in Afghanistan, the almost singular focus as they train up and deploy into theater, the necessary tightly woven culture of those combat forces that we are asking so much of at this time, and finally the direct feedback from the [Pentagon] survey, my recommendation is that we should not implement repeal at this time," said Gen. James Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps.

"Nevertheless, he later said, "despite the challenges ... at the end of the day we are Marines. Should Congress change the law then our nation's Marine Corps will faithfully support the law.""

Serving in the military is a privilege--it is not a right.  When you enlist, you pretty much give up most of your rights--the right to decide where you live, where you work, when you take vacation, etc.  If you can be disqualified because you have asthma, why can't you be disqualified for being a homosexual.  In very close quarters, homosexuality can interfere with troop unity.  Wartime tends to create very close quarters.  I think to change the policy would be a mistake.

Homosexual rights are not the same as civil rights.  A gay person does have the right not to be discriminated against, but a gay person does not have the right to have more rights than other Americans.  I believe that letting gays serve openly in the military would not be a benefit to anyone and would negatively impact the effectiveness of the American military.

There is an old joke that a camel is a horse designed by a committee.  The joke is that committees rarely accomplish anything good because the people on them are too busy looking for common ground.  Sometimes common ground is not the answer--leadership is!

CNBC is reporting today that the presidential commission to cut the deficit did not receive enough votes among its members to trigger congressional action.  Is anyone actually surprised by this?  The commission needed 14 votes to send its plan to Congress for legislative action.  They received 11 votes.  The article lists the actual votes.  It is interesting that Andy Stern (former president of the SEIU) and Congressman Paul Ryan both voted against the plan.  There were Republicans who voted for it and Democrats who voted against it, so this was not a party-line vote.  According the the article at CNBC, the proposed deficit-reduction plan is expected to have an impact on future budget debates.

Leadership does happen in Congress.  Although I do not agree with all of Paul Ryan's Roadmap, I think that plan for cutting the deficit is a really good place to start.  Hopefully, in January the Republcans will respond to the message of the American voters and begin an intelligent debate on curbing spending and cutting the deficit.

I guess we just have to improve our reading between the lines skills.  When I heard President Obama say that in order to get into the spirit of cutting federal spending, he would freeze the pay of federal workers for two years, I thought that he meant that he would freeze the pay of federal workers for two years.  Since federal workers make about 30 to 40 per cent (including benefits) more than private sector workers, I thought that freezing their wages was probably a good idea.  Well, it may or may not be a good idea, but it really doesn't matter because freezing wages isn't really freezing wages.

The Daily Caller reported today that the President's plan would stop the annual across-the-board cost of living adjustment (COLA) for all federal workers, it would not affect pay raise for job classification upgrades, and employees will still be eligible for step increase.

According to the United States Office of Personnel Management, new employees can expect to receive a step increase every year, mid-level employees can expect a step increase every two years.  Step increases can result in raises in amounts up to $22,672 in one year.  These raisees will happen even with the 'pay freeze.'  Could someone please freeze my pay that way?  The article points out that the COLA freeze probably would have happened anyway, since Social Security has not seen a COLA for two years.   Obviously, union officials have opposed the freeze (such as it is).

This is another example of telling the American people something to impress them while doing exactly the opposite thing.

The Democrats in Congress are determined not to go out with a whimper--they are attempting to create as much havoc as possible on the way out!

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reported yesterday that Speaker-designate John Boehner charged that Democratic leaders "undercut" conversations on extending the Bush tax cuts by scheduling a vote on the House floor for Thursday.

The Democrats have scheduled a vote on whether or not to extend only a portion of the current tax rates that expire on January 1.  They have cut off the discussion of other options.

According to the article:

"Boehner added, "I don't know what my colleagues across the aisle didn't hear during the election, the American people spoke pretty loudly. They said stop all the looming tax hikes and to cut spending.""

If the Republicans are capable of standing for the concept of cutting spending and lowering taxes, this is the time to do it.  If they give in here, they will lose the support of the people who elected the new Congress in November.  Hopefully, they realize this.  It is telling that there is bi-partisan support for maintaining all of the current tax rates.

The article further reports:

"Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), however, said that the bill (to keep only the current tax rate for the middle class) would be dead on arrival in the Senate.

"Forty-two Republican senators, which is all of us and an indeterminate number, significant number of Democrats, don't think we ought to raise taxes on anybody. So regardless of what the majority forces House Republicans to do, it's not going to go anywhere. We're going to extend the current tax rates, we're not going to raise taxes on anybody. The only thing we're discussing right now is how long that extension will be," the top-ranking GOP Senator said at the press availability following the governors-elect meeting."

Stick to your guns, guys!

Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute in Stanford, California, posted an article at Front Page Magazine today about the current Congressional debate over extending the current tax rates before they expire on January 1.

He comments, "The fact that this decision has been left until late in the eleventh hour, even though the expiration date has been known for years, tells us a lot about the utter irresponsibility of Congress."

The discussion has been that we need to extend unemployment benefits rather than cut tax rates for the wealthy.  There are some problems with this statement.  Extending unemployment not only does not stimulate the economy, it slows down the process of laid-off workers finding jobs.  Statistics show that unemployed people are most likely to return to work within two weeks of the time their unemployment insurance runs out.  That is a basic statement about human nature--it's not rocket science.  Cutting tax rates for the wealthy is not what is happening here--the actual issue is whether or not taxes will be raised on the wealthy on January 1.  No one's taxes are being cut--the question is whether or not to raise taxes on certain Americans.  The Democrats argue that the 'rich' don't need tax cuts, but the unemployed need more benefits.  The Democrats argue that extending unemployment insurance will stimulate the economy and that continuing the current tax rates will not.

Mr. Sowell concludes:

"What does that record say? It says, loud and clear, that cuts in tax rates do not mean cuts in tax revenues. In all four of these administrations, of both parties, so-called "tax cuts for the rich" led to increased tax revenues-- with people earning high incomes paying not only a larger sum total of tax revenues, but even a higher proportion of all tax revenues.

"Most important of all, these tax rate reductions spurred economic activity, which we definitely need today.

"These are the facts. But facts do not "speak for themselves." In terms of facts, the Republicans have the stronger case. But that doesn't matter, unless they make the case, which they show little sign of doing."

I hope someone begins making an effective case for keeping the current tax rates soon--the rates expire at the end of the month.

The Colorado Independent reported yesterday that recently-reelected Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet was caught on C-SPAN by an open microphone saying, "It's all rigged. The whole conversation is rigged. The fact that we don't get to a discussion before the break about what we're going to do in the lame duck. It's just rigged."  

Evidently that kind of honesty is not intended to be heard by the American people. 

The article further reports:

"Republicans have been bolstered in their opposition by their midterm election victories and seem determined to put off all voting until the new Congress begins next year. Today Democrats face an uphill battle trying to pass an overdue unemployment insurance extension for millions of Americans, and conservative Democratic Senators like Ben Nelson are already voicing strong opposition to Democratic priority bills like the DREAM Act, which would grant citizenship based on certain military service and education achievements to illegal immigrant young people brought here by their parents and raised in the U.S."

I have a question.  The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006.  They have had total control of Congress and the Presidency since 2008.  Why couldn't any of these issues have been settled before now?  We have known since 2001 that the current tax rates would expire on January 1--why is this being discussed now instead of last year or earlier this year?  The answer is very simple.  The Democrats have never had the votes to pass any of the things they are in such a rush to do now.  They still do not have the votes, and they will have even fewer votes after January.

The way I see it, the role of the Republicans currently in Congress is to limit the amount of damage the Democrats can do before they have to leave office.  There is a reason that the Democrats were voted out of office.  If they continue to attempt to pass unpopular legislation during a lame-duck session, they can expect to continue to be voted out of office.

The Washington Post is reporting today that the Obama Administration will announce Wednesday afternoon that they will not allow offshore oil drilling in the eastern Gulf of Mexico or off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts as part of the next five-year drilling plan, 

This move reverses the announcement made in March by the Obama Administraiton that they would open up the eastern Gulf and parts of the Atlantic to offshore oil and gas exploration.

This is not good news for America.  It pushes us further away from energy independence.  Also, as Wikileaks shows that the Saudis are funding terrorism, the banning of offshore drilling makes us more dependent on the Saudis for oil and forces us to give them more money to fund terrorism. 

This ban is also a danger to our national security.  If we cannot supply our own fuel for our military vehicles and airplanes, how in the world will we defend ourselves if we are called upon to do so at home?

We need a new President with a new Department of the Interior.  Hopefully, we will get both in 2012.

The best thing about the new Congress that will be seated in January is that they will be able to stop some of the laws President Obama is attempting to put into effect without the benefit of legislation.  One of these laws concerns the ability of the government to control the internet.

Today Big Government posted an article by Phil Kerpin about the "network neutrality" regulation.  The article reports that the Federal Communications Commission announced its agenda last night at midnight for their December 21 meeting--the FCC is going to regulate the Internet! 

According to the article:

"Network neutrality (also known by the even more lovely sounding marketing term "open Internet") is an outgrowth of the larger so-called media reform project of radical left-wing activists like Robert McChesney, the socialist founder of the misnamed group Free Press, which has enormous influence on the FCC, where its former communications director, Jen Howard, is FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski's press secretary.

"McChesney explained where net neutrality leads to SocialistProject.ca: 

"You will never ever, in any circumstance, win any struggle at any time. That being said, we have a long way to go. At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies. We are not at that point yet. But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."

The idea here is to have the government control the internet.  Keep in mind that the internet is probably the most powerful outlet for alternative news sources.  The aim of the Obama Administration is to control the news. 

The article concludes:

"Congress should act immediately next year to overturn the FCC's network neutrality regulations with a joint resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act, which the new Republican majority can pass in the House and which can then be forced onto the Senate floor with 30-senator petition.  It cannot be filibustered and would need just 51 votes to pass.

"Obama could veto it, but to do so he would have to take full personal responsibility for ending the most remarkable driver of economic growth, innovation, and free expression we have in this country: the free-market, unregulated Internet.

"Congress must show the White House that the strategy of pushing hard left inside the executive branch won't stand.  Congress must do what the American people asked for in this election: stop Obama's big government agenda."

Government control of the internet (and thus control of the news) is the end of our democracy.  Hopefully the Republicans in Congress will have the courage to end this move quickly.