January 2011 Archives

The following is from The Blog Prof:

"The rich in this country pay far more than their fair share. And not only does bottom 47% of taxpayers pay no federal income tax, but the bottom 40% GET MONEY BACK! The top 5% pay about 60% of the federal tax bill. It's now gotten so bad, so unfair, that the top 1% pay more in federal taxes than the bottom 95%"

This was President Obama's comment during the State of the Union Speech:

"And if we truly care about our deficit, we simply cannot afford a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. It's not a matter of punishing their success. It's about promoting America's success."

President Obama continues to punish success and then wonder why there is not more of it, as illustrated by the chart below.

John Podhoretz posted an article on the New York Post website yesterday with an interesting perspective on the unrest in the Middle East.  Mr. Podhoretz points out that the Obama Administration has said that the key to peace in the Middle East is a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute over territory and the creation of a Palestinian state. 

Mr. Podhoretz reminds us that during the first twenty years of Israel's existence, all of its Arab neighbors were at war with her.  During the past forty years, that situation has changed. 

The article states:

"Jordan effectively quit the fight after Israel's triumph in the 1967 war cut Jordan in half.  So too did the Arab states that did not share a border with Israel.  The bloody toll of the '73 war then led Egypt and Syria to surrender their ambitious military efforts to drive Israel into the sea."

Recently, the problems in Israel have been with terrorists claiming to represent Palestinian interests based either in the West Bank, Gaza, or southern Lebanon.  None of this is related to what is going on in Egypt. Jordan, or any other Arab state experiencing protests.

The rulers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Jordan have all been in place for a minimum of thirty years (Mubarak has been in power for thirty years, the others longer).  These are not democracies and all have severe economic inequities.  Israel (and America) have been used as scapegoats to take the blame off of the totalitarian regimes.  Why then are we surprised when the protesters are yelling, "Death to Israel and Death to America?"  It is highly unlikely that thirty plus years of blaming Israel and America will give us a pro-western government. Unfortunately, a democracy in Egypt may bring us another Iran.

Yesterday Mark Impomeni at the Daily Caller posted an interesting article about President Obama's State of the Union Speech.  As you remember, this was the first State of the Union Speech where Democrats and Republicans sat together rather than on separate side of the chamber (described by some as Prom Dates). 

The stated purpose of the seating was to show unity after the attack on Representative Giffords.  Those of us who tend to be a little cynical felt that the change in seating was so that the extent of the Democrat loss in the November elections would be less obvious. 

Mr. Impomeni observes:

"The seating arrangement contributed to an uncharacteristically restrained audience for the speech, which when combined with a lackluster performance from the president, ended up killing one of President Obama's best chances to make the case for his agenda."

Last year's State of the Union Speech (with Congressmen and Congresswomen in their respective 'corners') was interrupted by applause more than 100 times.  This year there were only 70 interruptions.  It may have been more civil (fewer standing ovations, interruptions by applause, etc.), but it was a whole lot less fun.

According to Wikipedia, the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by the Islamic scholar and Sufi schoolteacher Hassan al-Banna.  (I don't generally like Wikipedia as a source, but you can usually get basic information there).

The Muslim Brotherhood was banned in Egypt under President Hosni Mubarak.

Jeff Goldberg in The Atlantic posted several statements by the new Supreme Guide of the Brotherhood, Mohammad Badi, (courtesy of the Middle East Media Research Institute):

"Today the Muslims desperately need a mentality of honor and means of power [that will enable them] to confront global Zionism. [This movement] knows nothing but the language of force, so [the Muslims] must meet iron with iron, and winds with [even more powerful] storms. They crucially need to understand that the improvement and change that the [Muslim] nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death just as the enemies pursue life."

Mr. Goldberg cites further statements:

"The Soviet Union fell dramatically, but the factors that will lead to the collapse of the U.S. are much more powerful than those that led to the collapse of the Soviet empire - for a nation that does not champion moral and human values cannot lead humanity, and its wealth will not avail it once Allah has had His say, as happened with [powerful] nations in the past. The U.S. is now experiencing the beginning of its end, and is heading towards its demise..."

Finally:

"Resistance is the only solution against the Zio-American arrogance and tyranny, and all we need is for the Arab and Muslim peoples to stand behind it and support it. The peoples know well who is [carrying out] resistance and who has sold out the [Palestinian] cause and bargained over it. We say to our brothers the mujahideen in Gaza: be patient, persist in [your jihad], and know that Allah is with you..."

The thing to consider here is that America is considered a target for revolution.  As the news reports that the Muslim Brotherhood is reaching out to Mohamed El Baradei during the unrest, America needs to realize that El Baradei is not good news for either America or Israel.  What is happening in Egypt is a subtle part of the war against the west.  At some point America needs to realize that terrorism is a world-wide phenomenon and that we need to look at the entire picture--not just pieces of that picture.

The danger here is that Egypt will end its peace treaty with Israel and will align with the forces of Iran, Lebanon, and Syria in attempting to destroy Israel.  Since Israel is armed with nuclear weapons that it will use as a last resort, an attack on Israel by a new Arab coalition would be a disaster for both the Middle East and the world.

On Friday, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the results of the Civil Rights Commission's inquiry into the Justice Department's handing of the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case.  The Civil Rights Commission released their final report on the case Thursday.

The article quotes Civil Rights Commissioner Todd Gaziano:

"After a year of DOJ's intransigence and baseless refusals to comply with our subpoenas, two Department attorneys bravely defied orders to testify before the Commission: the former Civil Rights Division Voting Section chief, Christopher Coates, and a lead trial attorney in the NBPP case, J. Christian Adams. Their testimony and the sworn affidavits from former DOJ staff portray a pervasive culture of hostility to race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws in the Civil Rights Division. The detailed allegations include: a former section chief who doctored a memo to try to prevent a meritorious case from being filed against black defendants, racially offensive statements by several supervisors and staff, and repeated instances of harassment and intimidation directed against anyone willing to work on lawsuits against minority defendants."

The video of the voter intimidation incident can be found at You Tube.  Based on that video, it seemed like an easy case, but that's not the way it was handled. 

The article quotes part of Commissioner Gail Heriot's statement on the case:

"[T]he actual activities of the Voting Section have been consistent with the policy statements Ms. Fernandes is alleged to have made and not with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez' efforts to assure the Commission that the Division operates race neutrally (made long before Adams's and Coates's whistle-blowing testimony). The New Black Panther Party case was indeed disposed of over the vociferous objections of the line attorneys who had worked on the case and against the advice of career attorneys in the appellate section. This is exactly what one would expert if the allegations against Ms. Fernandes [i.e., that the Obama Justice Department enforces the law in a racist manner] were true. No further voter intimidation cases (whether brought under Section 11(b) or the more commonly used Section 2) have been filed against African American defendants--again, exactly as one would expect."

I have no idea what action will be taken as a result of this report, but it is very troubling to me that the Justice Department has lost its objectivity in supporting voting rights.

My Way news (Associated Press) reported yesterday that the Muslim Brotherhood has stated that the unrest in the Middle East will spread until all pro-western governments are overthrown. 

There were protests in Jordan recently demanding the ousting of Jordanian Prime Minister Samir Rifai.  The thing to be noted in the Jordanian protests is that the protests have been done by the Bedouins, not by the Palestinian population.  Jordan is ruled by Hashemites, although the majority of its population is Palestinian.  Transjordan was orginally created out of the territory the British had promised to Israel.  The county was established with the Hashemites in charge as a reward for the role the Arabs had played in World War I (it was later discovered that their role had been exaggerated).  The fact that the Bedouins are protesting means that there is unrest in the police force and military.  This is not good. 

The preceeding paragraph contradicts the news story, but is based on the comments of a former member of the Israeli defense services.  His prediction is that Egypt will fall, followed by other countries in the area falling like dominoes.

According to the article, Hammam Saeed, the leader of Jordan's powerful Muslim Brotherhood, has stated:

"...Arabs have grown disgruntled with U.S. domination of their oil wealth, military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and its support for "totalitarian" leaders in the region.

""The Americans and (President Barack) Obama must be losing sleep over the popular revolt in Egypt," he said. "Now, Obama must understand that the people have woken up and are ready to unseat the tyrant leaders who remained in power because of U.S. backing.""

I understand that the Arabs may want to unseat their tyrant leaders, I just don't believe that the Muslim Brotherhood would be a move toward freedom.  I think it will mean more human rights violations, just different violations than we currently have.  I think the country to watch as this unfolds is Saudi Arabia.  Saudi Arabia is not a democratic society and is as vulnerable to public unrest as the countries currently experiencing such unrest.

The stategic move that America needs to make right now is to quickly increase its output of domestic oil resources.  Unfortunately, that is opposite of the direction of the current administration.  Unless we develop our own carbon resources very quickly, we will be paying upwards of $5 a gallon for gasoline in the near future.

The U. K. Daily Mail reported yesterday that U. S. border guards arrested Said Jaziri, a Muslim cleric, trying to sneak into the United States in the trunk of a Mexican BMW.

According to the article:

"Said Jaziri, who called for the death of a Danish cartoonist that drew pictures of the prophet Mohammed, was being smuggled into California when he was arrested, along with his driver Kenneth Robert Lawler."

It would be interesting to know exactly where he was headed.  According to the story, Mr. Jaziri had paid a Tijuana-based smuggling cartel $5,000 to take him across the border near Tecate, saying he wanted to be taken to a 'safe place anywhere in the U.S.'

Mr. Jaziri was deported from Canada to Tunisia in 2007 after it was discovered that he had lied on his refugee application about having served time in jail in France.

It would be interesting to know who else is attempting to sneak across the southern border of the United States.

Stratfor Global Intelligence is reporting today that their sources in Hamas have given them the information in italics below.  They also point out that Hamas has an interest in exaggerating its role in the crisis in Egypt and also exaggerating its coordination with the Muslim Brotherhood. 

The website reports the following unconfirmed, but important information:

"The Egyptian police are no longer patrolling the Rafah border crossing into Gaza. Hamas armed men are entering into Egypt and are closely collaborating with the MB. The MB has fully engaged itself in the demonstrations, and they are unsatisfied with the dismissal of the Cabinet. They are insisting on a new Cabinet that does not include members of the ruling National Democratic Party.

"Security forces in plainclothes are engaged in destroying public property in order to give the impression that many protesters represent a public menace. The MB is meanwhile forming people's committees to protect public property and also to coordinate demonstrators' activities, including supplying them with food, beverages and first aid."

I am simply not optimistic about what is happening in Egypt.  Frankly I don't think it will matter to the United States or Israel whether or not the current government stands.  I think we are entering a very dangerous period in the entire Middle East--with problems in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as Egypt--that is going to last for a while and have a very uncertain outcome.  Until a group of democracies and free countries forms to help spread freedom and to deal with those who deny freedom to their citizens, freedom will not expand. I believe that was the original intention of the United Nations, but somewhere along the way they got lost.  The outcome of what is happening in Egypt is much more likely to be in tune with Iran than with America.

As I write this, the internet is shut down in Egypt, so there is very limited information available on what is going on there.  There is, however, some good perspective from people who have studied the country for years. 

Yesterday, Caroline Glick posted an opinion piece in the Jerusalem Post on the situtation in Egypt.  She points out that Mohamed El Baradei is participating in the anti-government demonstrations (although at one point he was under house arrest), and is seen as the 'presidential hopeful' amid the chaos.  Mohamed El Baradei was the man who looked the other way as Iran developed its nuclear program.  He is not a moderate Muslim. 

Ms. Glick points out:

"His actions won him the support of the Iranian regime which he continues to defend. Just last week he dismissed the threat of a nuclear armed Iran, telling the Austrian News Agency, "There's a lot of hype in this debate," and asserting that the discredited 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran abandoned its nuclear weapons program in 2003 remains accurate.

"Elbaradei's support for the Iranian ayatollahs is matched by his support for the Muslim Brotherhood."

The Muslim Brotherhood is an international group named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Case in 2004.  The documents uncovered in that case revealed that the .
agenda to be carried out by these groups in the United States in reality had little to do with the organizations' publicly-proclaimed goals, such as protecting the civil rights of Muslims. Rather, the true goal is to destroy the United States from the inside and work to establish a global Islamist society.

John Waage at CBN News posted an article yesterday stating that:

"Egypt's next leader might be inclined to embrace Hamas and press harder for an end to Israel's naval embargo of the Gaza Strip.

"The Egyptian populace is solidly anti-American and anti-Israel. One political party wants to abrogate Egypt's 1977 peace treaty with Israel. The next leader may need to play to those sentiments to solidify power.

"Also, if freer and fairer elections take place there, they could well produce a similar result as the Palestinian elections in 2006, when the citizens handily elected Hamas."

Meanwhile, the peace accord struck between Israel and Egypt that resulted in Israel's giving up the Sinai Peninsula also paved the way for America to arm Egypt to the teeth. 

Ms. Glick reminds us:

"Owing to that US (military) aid, the Egyptian military today makes the military Israel barely defeated in 1973 look like a gang of cavemen. Egypt has nearly 300 F-16s. Its main battle tank is the M1A1 which it produces in Egypt. Its navy is the largest in the region. Its army is twice the size of the IDF. Its air defense force constitutes a massive threat to the IAF. And of course, the ballistic missiles and chemical weapons it has purchased from the likes of North Korea and China give it a significant stand-off massdestruction capability."

I am not sure there is a good outcome to the protests in Egypt.  The current leadership does not support freedom, but the potential new leadership will not support freedom either and will be more dangerous to the supporters of freedom around the world.  At some point the world is going to have to take a really good look at the goal of some of the militant Muslims to set up a world-wide caliphate. The countries who support freedom will have to decide how to unify against that goal.  I don't think we are there yet.  I am not even sure we are truly aware of the problem.

To look at the documents presented in the Holy Land Foundation Case that detailed the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood, you can go to Justice.gov, the website of the United States Justice Department.

Wired.com reported yesterday that a would-be suicide bomber was killed in Russia on New Year's Eve when her wireless carrier sent her an SMS (Short Message Service) text wishing her a Happy New Year.  The message set off the explosives in the safe house where she was preparing for the attack, killing her. 

The article reports:

"The authorities suspect the female bomber was part of the same Jihadist group that is suspected of hitting Moscow's airport on Monday with a suicide bomb attack that killed 35."

This is not all that unusual or new.  There is a very old book called THE GANG THAT COULDN'T SHOOT STRAIGHT about wars between the organized crime families in New York City during the 1960's that had a similar incident where a 'family' member was carrying a bomb with a remote control device in order to place it under a gang rival's car.  Someone made a call on some sort of short wave radio and that was the end of the bomb and the bomb placer.

The Hill's Energy and Environmental Blog is reporting today that a draft Environmental Protection Agency report "concludes that expanded production of renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel carries an array of ecological risks in the U.S. and other nations, and calls for improved policies to mitigate these harms."

Wouldn't it be easier just to develop our nation's carbon energy resources and be done with it?  (The devil you know, etc.) 

A 2007 energy law includes a requirement that a new analysis of the ecological effects of expanding the development of biofuels be done.  The article reports:

"The report comes as ethanol is already under attack from some environmentalists, and lawmakers seeking to strip tax subsidies. But renewable fuels are valued as a way to displace oil reliance and boost rural economies, and retain powerful political support on Capitol Hill.

"Elsewhere, the report addresses effects on wildlife and habitat. "Increased cultivation of feedstocks for biofuel could significantly affect biodiversity through habitat alteration when uncultivated land is put into production," it states, also noting risks of plant and animal exposure to pesticides, nutrient runoff into waters and other effects."

This is another journey into the world of unintended consequences.  There will come a day when America can be weaned from her dependence on carbon fuel.  However, that day will come as a result of a free market and the removal of some of the choking federal regulations that impact businesses.  In the past, an idea was not generally successful the first time it was attempted, but inventors and companies understood the rewards of trying something until they achieved success.  When the government overtaxes and overregulates, creativity decreases.  Government subsidies do not create inventions and innovations, they inhibit them. 

I am not a particularly mechanical person.  My children are impressed that I finally learned how to work the VCR.  Now I find out that VCR's are no longer sold--you have to get DVD players.  This could be a problem.

Anyway, I never considered some of the unexpected consequences of the electric or hybrid car.  I don't own a hybrid (Ford doesn't seem to make the Mustang in hybrid), so I was somewhat surprised when I read the article in today's Washington Post about the effects of cold weather on battery-operated or hybrid cars. 

The article quotes another article at the car electric:

"All batteries deliver their power via a chemical reaction inside the battery that releases electrons. When the temperature drops the chemical reactions happen more slowly and the battery cannot produce the same current that it can at room temperature. A change of ten degrees can sap 50% of a battery's output. In some situations the chemical reactions will happen so slowly and give so little power that the battery will appear to be dead when in fact if it is warmed up it will go right back to normal output. . . . "

That doesn't sound like something that would work extremely well in New England or northern Minnesota.  Why, then, is the government pushing hybrid or electric cars? 

The Washington Post reports in its article:

"In his address Tuesday, the president reiterated his goal of putting 1 million plug-in hybrids and all-electrics on the road by 2015 and insisted that Congress spend hundreds of millions of additional dollars to achieve it. At present, fewer than 5,000 electrics are out there, so auto companies would have to make and sell about a quarter of a million vehicles annually between now and 2015 to meet his target."

In his pursuit of choosing winners and losers in the American economy, President Obama has chosen the manufacturers of electric cars as winners.  As usual, the free market is ignored and this will become another federal boondoggle.  Buying an electric car in the northern part of the country is not something that is without problems.  The President's intentions may be noble, but, as usual, there are unintended consequences.

This story is based on two sources--the first is a press release by Senator DeMint and an article at wltx.com.

Senator Jim DeMint has introduced legislation to repeal fully the healthcare reform bill that President Obama signed into law on March 23, 2010.  There are thirty-four Republican cosponsors for the bill to repeal. 

These are the reasons Senator DeMint lists for repealing the bill:

• Leading Economists project that ObamaCare will add roughly $500 billion in new health care taxes, passing those costs to patients and will raise the federal budget deficit by more than $500 billion over the next 10 years and by nearly $1.5 trillion in the following decade.
• According to the Congressional Budget Office, ObamaCare will increase health care costs to families by $2,100 per year.
• The Heritage Foundation estimates that the economy will lose 670,000 jobs under the new law, many of them in the health care industry.
• An American Action Forum study finds that employers will be forced to drop employer-sponsored health care coverage for as many as 35 million Americans.
• An analysis from HSA Consulting Services concludes the new law restricts the use of Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and reduces the amount of money that can be contributed to Flexible Savings Accounts (FSAs).
• As of Dec. 3, 2010, 222 waivers from ObamaCare's annual limit requirements had been granted to businesses, labor unions, and insurers, affecting 1.5 million enrollees.
• On Dec. 13, 2010, a U.S. district court ruled that it is unconstitutional for the government to impose an individual mandate to buy health insurance.

At this point, I would like to mention that the number of waivers as of December 30 was 729. 

The article at wtlx points out:

"Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-KY, has said he will work to put the House repeal measure on the Senate voting calendar.
The DeMint bill is meant as a backup in case the House bill fails. Democrats outnumber Republicans 51-47 in the Senate, and two independent members vote with Democrats.

"DeMint's measure is almost certain to fail, but it will put each senator's vote on the record. That could be used against Democrats when they come up for re-election.

"If DeMint brings his bill to the floor, Democrats are prepared to offer measures that would force Republicans to vote on some of the law's most popular provisions, such as one barring insurers from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions, Reid's office said. Votes to repeal such provisions could come back to haunt Republicans in the next election."

Obamacare is a very bad bill.  The House Republicans have already begun working on replacement bills that would solve some of the problems in our healthcare system without creating a massive government bureaucracy.  The Senate Democrats' plan to list the good points in Obamacare may not work if the Republicans have proposed alternatives the the dramatic increase in government spending and authority.  It really is time for everyone to take an honest look at what is best for the counrty.  The problem here is a basic difference of philosophy.  If you believe the government makes better decisions than you and your doctor, support Obamacare.  If you believe that your medical needs are best met by you and your doctor, and not by the government, support repeal.  Remember, the government brought us the Postal Service and the IRS.  Do we really want them controlling medical care? 

I reported on Tuesday (rightwinggranny.com) that 222 business, unions, organizations, etc., had been granted waivers from Obamacare.  Well, Hot Air reported yesterday that the number has grown to 729 through the end of December. 

The article reports:

"I don't think it's too much of a stretch to suggest that OCIIO (Office of Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight) was asked to hold this development until after the SOTU. Indeed the latest waiver approved in the list is from December 30th. There is an addendum at the bottom of the page noting that four states-Massachusetts, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee-have applied for waivers covering another 93,000 people. The addendum is dated 1/21/11, but I can assure you it was not there on 1/21 or even Monday."

If Obamacare is so great, why do we have waivers covering 2.2 million people?  Why are these people getting waivers?  Why aren't you and I getting waivers?

Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story yesterday about the new regulations the Obama Administration is placing on the coal industry.  According to the administration's own experts, the new rules will cost thousands of jobs and slash production across the country.

The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM) is replacing the Bush-era rules which set up buffer zones around streams and were aimed mainly at mountaintop removal mining in Appalachia. 

The article reports:

""Neither the environmental impact statement nor the administrative record that OSM has developed over 30-plus year of regulation ... justify the sweeping changes that they're proposing to make," West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection official Thomas Clarke told the Associated Press on Wednesday. "I've had OSM technical people who are concerned with stream impacts and outside contractors for OSM who are subcontractors on the EIS give me their opinion that the whole thing's a bunch of junk.""

U.S. Senator Joe Manchin, D-W.Va, has said that he will do everything he can to block these new regulations.

The article reports:

"Manchin already plans to introduce legislation to curb the powers of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which recently vetoed a permit the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had long ago issued for Arch Coal's Spruce No. 1 mine in Logan County."

America is the Saudi Arabia of coal.  To shut down or increase restrictions on the coal industry is not a wise move for the American economy, particularly during a recession.   This is another example of the government picking economic winners and losers--which is not the job of the government.

There are two sources for this article, an article by Ed Morrissey posted at Hot Air yesterday and an article posted at Yahoo News yesterday.

Rham Emanuel's name has been put back on the ballot for Mayor of Chicago due to a stay issued by the Illinois Supreme Court. 

Mr. Morrissey at Hot Air reports:

"The Illinois Supreme Court has granted Rahm Emanuel's stay. Which means he's back on the ballot.

"Earlier today Emanuel's spokesman Ben Labolt said the mayoral candidate had plans to turn to the U.S. Supreme Court if he didn't receive a favorable ruling from the state."

Yahoo News reports:

"Illinois' highest court agreed Tuesday to decide whether Rahm Emanuel can run for Chicago Mayor, and justices ordered election officials not to print any ballots without his name until they rule on the case.

"The action bought valuable time for the former White House chief of staff, who a day earlier was kicked off the ballot by an appeals court. The state Supreme Court said it would expedite the matter but gave no specific time frame.

"With less than a week to go before the first early ballots are cast, a number of potential scenarios loomed, including the possibility that Emanuel would have to resort to a write-in campaign or wage a desperate bid to take the matter to federal court."

Maybe I'm getting cynical in my old age, but this is Chicago and Illinois politics.  I can't imagine Rham Emanuel being barred from running even if he were a little green man from Mars.  He is part of the political machine in Chicago, regardless of whether or not he has lived there during the past two years.  This may be a very interesting case to follow.  I think it may be safe to say, even at this point, that Rham Emanuel will be the next Mayor of Chicago.  I have no idea how that will happen, I just believe it will.

Chris Field at Townhall.com posted an interesting comment on the President's State of the Union Speech.  Mr. Field quotes the President as saying:

"We measure progress by the success of our people. By the jobs they can find and the quality of life those jobs offer. By the prospects of a small business owner who dreams of turning a good idea into a thriving enterprise. By the opportunities for a better life that we pass on to our children."

Mr. Field points out that in the above statement "the president made the Right's case for eliminating the Death Tax."  If the American dream is to pass on your wealth to your children, why are the Democrats so intent on taking that wealth away from you when you die?  How many family farms or small businesses had to be sold to pay the death tax because the wealth of the business was not in liquid assets?  President Obama, if you understand that the American dream is a better life for our children, why are you trying to take that dream away from us?

One of the major problems with the Obama Administration is that they seem to make a habit of using the government to pick winners and losers.  For example, the unions were the winners in the Chrysler bailout, the stockholders were the losers.  They ignored existing bankruptcy laws when they did that.  They have picked the American energy producers as losers--the development and use of America's energy resources has been either serverly cut back or stopped by this administration.  One of the winners they have picked is General Electric.  Now General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt is to lead the President's new jobs council.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an article about what the federal government and General Electric have in common.

President Obama has stated that he wants to economy to grow.  The article at the Wall Street Journal points out:

"Step back for a minute from the day to day policy fights and consider how an economy can grow faster. One way is to get people to work harder or longer. The government can contribute here with policies that reward work and investment, such as lower taxes.

"A second route to faster growth is innovation, which means inventions or new processes that increase productivity. Government can help with money for basic research, but private investment, human ingenuity and luck are the main drivers.

"The third way is through the more efficient use of capital, both human and monetary. These resources are scarce in any economy, and growth will be fastest if they are allowed to find their highest return. If resources are allocated to less productive uses or create asset bubbles due to bad policy, then overall growth will be slower than it should be."

The article focuses on the use of capital, both human and monetary.  The Federal Reserve pumped money into the financial industry and real estate, and that bubble burst.  When that happened, the government responded by expanding the federal government. 

The article describes what has happened in the current economy:

"One reason the current recovery has been so lackluster is that it takes time for an economy to retool from these mistakes. Money that went to build now-empty condos on the Vegas Strip--or to government transfer payments--can't be reclaimed to rebuild American manufacturing and technology."

The article compares what has happened to the federal budget to what has happened to General Electric in recent years.  During the build up to the economic bubble, GE Capital was the most successful part of General Electric.  The article states,"Yet without federal loan guarantees for debt issuance, among other government aid during the crisis, GE Capital might well have taken the entire company down."  

The article points out:

"Along with Mr. Obama, Mr. Immelt is now preaching the virtues of U.S. manufacturing and innovation. A glance at the GE homepage invites readers to "watch the rebirth of rails," of all things. GE also wants to produce more in the U.S., even though its domestic employment fell by about 34,000 from 2000 to 2009. These are laudable intentions."

The article concludes:

"But even if you believe that such spending (tarp, stimulus, etc.) prevented a depression, it makes no economic sense to keep those resources under political sway now that the recovery is underway. Would you rather have Congress allocating that 4% of GDP, or millions of individuals deciding among Apple, Gilead Sciences, or the next great idea?

"The path back to faster growth, more jobs and a more competitive U.S. economy does not travel through more political mediation. Nor does it lie in endlessly easy Fed policy in a misguided attempt to refloat the housing bubble or revive the financial boom. A better economy requires policies that reward work and innovation, while letting capital flow to the companies and individuals with the best ideas. They might even be GE's."

If the economy is to grow, we need to get the government out of our pockets and out of business.  Let business run business.  The winners and losers will emerge in the free market without government intervention.

Last night Yahoo Finance posted its fact check on President Obama's State of the Union Speech.  These are some of the issues they found:

1.  STATEMENT:  Healthcare reform is one way to stop the growth of the deficit.  FACT:  There are some very arguable assumptions that go into the statement that the healthcare reform bill will save taxpayers (or consumers) money.

2.  STATEMENT:  The President promised to veto any bill that contains earmarks.  FACT:  Republicans have taken the lead in battling earmarks while Obama signed plenty of earmark-laden spending bills when Democrats controlled both houses.

3.  STATEMENT:  The President stated, "I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits."  FACT:  This has been suggested by the Republicans in the past and gone nowhere.  The problem is that trial lawyers are a major part of the Democrat Party's funding.

4.  STATEMENT:  The President praised the bipartisan fiscal commission that gave its report last year.  FACT:  The President has not endorsed any of the ideas put forth by the commission.

5.  STATEMENT:  The President claimed that his diplomatic efforts to stop the spread of nuclear weapons has been successful.  He cited the fact that Iran "faces tougher and tighter sanctions than ever before."  FACT:  He neglected to mention that although the sanctions have supposedly gotten tougher, they have not been effective. 

The President doesn't seem to be aware of either the results of the November election or the danger that the growing deficit creates for our country.  He needs to allow America to develop her own energy resources for a start.  That will create jobs, provide affordable gasoline prices, help with the trade deficit, and stop the American funding of terrorism.  None of that was in the speech.  This man simply does not see the economic danger his budgets for the past two years have created.  The best thing that can happen for America is a 2012 election when a President who is actually willing to allow the economy to grow can be elected.

Today's Daily Caller posted an article stating that California Democrat Representative  Loretta Sanchez has requested that Representative Gabrielle Giffords be taken off of the House Armed Services Committee until she recovers from the injuries she sustained in Tucson.

These are the same Democrats who put Representative Hank Johnson on the House Armed Services Committee where he made the following statement to a military officer during a briefing about troop increases on Guam, "My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize,"   I think they can wait for Representative Giffords to get back to Washington.  I hope and pray that her recovery will continue to go as well as it has.

Representative Sanchez said that since every vote on the committee was critical, she felt Representative Giffords should be replaced at least temporarily. 

The article reports:

"A spokesman for Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon told TheDC that he does not support Sanchez's call to have someone fill in for Giffords."

Someone needs to explain to Representative Sanchez that it's not always about votes--sometimes it's about compassion.

Today, Mark Tapscot at the Washington Examiner is beginning a series of reports on the Democrat Party.  The reports deal with the influence of special interest groups within the party and the impact they have on the party.  In his initial article today, he reminds us of the Howard Dean statement as to why tort reform was not in the healthcare reform bill even though it was needed. 

The article quotes Howard Dean:

"Here's why tort reform is not in the bill.  When you go to pass a really enormous bill like that, the more stuff you put into it, the more enemies you make.  And the reason the tort reform is not in the bill is because the people who wrote it did not want to take on the trial lawyers in addition to everyone else they were taking on and that is the plain and simple truth."

Wow.  An honest answer from a political figure. 

The article lists the four gourps that currently control the Democrat party--lawyers, environmentalists, unions, and insiders.  These groups fund the party and thus control the agenda. 

Please follow the link above to read the article and see the list of upcoming articles in the series.

Or are they getting waivers because they supported the bill?  That is the question.  What am I talking about?  Unions and healthcare reform.

CNS News reported yesterday that:

"Three local chapters of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), whose political action committee spent $27 million supporting Barack Obama in the 2008 presidential election, have received temporary waivers from a provision in the Obamacare law."

Thus far, 45 out of the 222 waivers given have been given to labor unions.  The other 177 waivers have been given to businesses and charitable organizations.  One of the recipients of a waiver was the AARP, which also strongly supported the bill.

The article further states:

"A total of 1,507,418 enrollees are now included in the waivers. More than one-third -- 512,315 - of the enrollees affected were insured by union health plans."

I didn't like the healthcare reform bill to begin with (or the way it was passed), but I really dislike its being used to repay political favors.

This is a link to a three page letter written on January 25, 2011, by General Petraeus to the troops.  The letter was posted on Michael Yon's website. 

There are a few things in the letter that I find encouraging:

"The implementation of our stategy in 2010 was helped considerably by the deployment of additional ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) forces, the growth of the Afghan Army and Police, an increase in the number of our civilian partners, and the associated funding to enable it all.  Indeed, together with the establishment of additional organizations and refinements of our stategy, the additional resources enabled us this past fall to get the "inputs" right in Afghanistan for the first time"

"...In sum, 2010 was a year of significant, hard-fought accomplishments.  The year ahead is likely to be a tough one, too.  Again, though, I am confident that the combined efforts of ISAF and Afghan forces will enable further important progress in 2011."

There are two things to note here.  Thank you to all our military troops and their families (who also serve), and thank you to General Petraeus for the job he is doing.

Hot Air reported Saturday that Idaho, the first state to sue the federal government over Obamacare, has now announced that it plans to use an18th century legal remedy that recognizes a state's right to nullify any federal law that the state has deemed unconstitutional in order to prevent Obamacare from being implemented there.

According to the article:

"Idaho is not the only state considering nullification as a remedy. Six others, including Maine, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, Texas and Wyoming, are also considering bills that would in essence nullify the president's signature on the reform law."

Wow.  The article reminds us that there are now 27 states involved in the lawsuit against Obamacare.  Stay tuned for a whole bunch of legal battles.

Today's Washington Post reports that the annual March for Life in Washington began today with a huge youth Mass at the Verizon Center.  This will be the 38th annual March for Life. 

According to the article:

"More than 27,000 young people secured tickets for the morning concert, pep rally and Mass, according to the Archdiocese of Washington. For the first time, a parallel event was held at the D.C. Armory to handle the overflow crowd."

On Friday, CNS News reported that Representative Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) will be the keynote speaker at its Rose Dinner event that marks the end of a weekend of protests and ceremonies focused on ending abortion.

The CNS News article cites two recent news stories regarding abortion:

"One report noted that 41 percent of pregnancies in New York City end in an abortion. That figure, twice the national average, was called "chilling" by New York Catholic Archbishop Timothy Dolan, who said he was "embarrassed" for the city over the high rate of abortions.

"The second major abortion story concerns a Philadelphia abortionist, Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who was charged with eight counts of murder after investigators discovered that one woman and seven babies died during botched abortion procedures that he reportedly performed."

The CNS News story reminds us that:

"According to the liberal Guttmacher Institute, 1.2 million abortions take place in the United states each year.  Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, a little over 52 million children have been killed by abortion in America."

There are two things to remember here.  I have heard it commented that the reason there is still debate on abortion is that the American people never actually got to vote on it.  Up until Roe v. Wade, each state had established its own rules covering abortion rights.  Roe v. Wade simply said that the federal government controlled abortion policies--not the states.  If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will not be illegal--it will become a state issue rather than a federal issue.  At that point, each state will set up its own standards and rules regarding abortion.

One of the things that needs to be included in any reform of healthcare insurance is tort reform.  We have reached the point where the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors is through the roof, and the huge settlements awarded in lawsuits do not always go to the injured parties--the lawyers take a very large chunk.  I don't begrudge lawyers earning a living (I raised one), but I do think that we have lost some of our perspective when it comes to damages and who collects them.

All this relates to an article in Friday's Daily Caller.  The article deals with the role lawsuits have played in the practice of American medicine.  The article begins with the story of the British medical profession and the idea that the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine was causing autism.  Medical researcher Andrew Wakefield was working on a lawsuit and came up with 'evidence' to support his case.  His studies have been proven false since then. 

The article reports:

"The most disturbing effect of this fraud has been to convince many parents that no vaccines of any kind are worth getting for their children.  According to one publication, "vaccination levels plunged as low as 80% in the U.K...and in 2008, measles was declared endemic in Britain and Wales."  Infections are surging elsewhere, too.  The BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL article reports that in California last summer, 10 babies dies from whooping cough "in the worse outbreak since 1958.""

As I said, the bogus research was put together for use in a lawsuit.  The article also cites a drug called Bendectin.  This is a drug used to cure morning sickness.  The drug is illegal in the United States, but used in Canada and Europe.  The article states that the drug was taken off the American market because lawyers used faulty medical conclusions to sue the company that manufactures it.

I am not a medical researcher and do not know what the standards for medical research are, but it seems to me that a medical researcher who does research for an attorney might not be entirely objective in his research.

On Friday, Charles Krauthammer posted a column at the Washington Post about the repeal of Obamacare.  He points out that the Congressional Budget Office numbers the Democrats are using to say that repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit actually say something else.  Dr. Krauthammer points out that the way Obamacare decreases the deficit is to raise taxes by  $770 billion while increasing spending by $540 billion.  It might also be noted that tax revenues are predicted--not guaranteed--while spending is guaranteed to be at least what is predicted, if not more.  To see an example of this, follow the link to a rightwinggranny.com on November 12, 2010, detailing what has happened to the plan to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions. 

Dr. Krauthammer points out:

"In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the entitlement it creates - government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans - doesn't kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures - while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenue. With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive - i.e., deficit-reducing - number. Surprise."

The column by Dr. Krauthammer reminds Congress that they should not repeal Obamacare without offering a replacement.  He conludes:

"But amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete non-starter. Everything begins with repeal."

That is why the vote in the House last week to repeal Obamacare was not symbolic--it was real.  Now the idea is to get Senators on the record as to whether or not they are willing to try to get healthcare reform right.  What was passed last year was a tribute to special interests and pork with very little regard for the consumers of health care.  Hopefully this Congress can put together something much less complicated and much better.

Card Check is the voting process in union elections in which the secret ballot is eliminated.   An employee votes on whether or not he thinks his company should unionize while a union representative is standing there waiting for him to mark his card.  It takes away a true free election--it lets either the unions bosses or the company bosses know who they need to intimidate.  The unions have been pushing card check because they believe they will be the winners if it goes into effect.  The unions are looking for more members for two reasons--more members means more power and influence politically, and more members will help delay the day of reckoning for the union pension funds.  More members means more dues, more dues means more money to pay pensions that have not been fully funded.  However, union membership is not growing.

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday:

"The Bureau of Labor Statistics says unions lost 612,000 members in 2010. That drops the unionized share of the work force to 11.9 percent from 12.3 percent in 2009."

"In the private sector, union membership is down to 6.9 percent, "a low point not seen since the infancy of the labor movement in the 1930s." Unions continue to thrive only in monopoly environments, like professional sports and government."

The report at the Bureau of Labor also states that 7.6 million out of 14.7 million union members are in the public sector.  Union membership is highest among older workers and lowest among younger workers.  The crunch point for the unions will come when the states are not able to pay the unfunded liabilities that are the pensions the unions have demanded in their bargaining agreements.  I don't know what the legal outcome will be, but there are several states that are looking into something similar to bankruptcy in order to get out from under union contracts.  At that point the value of having the union do your negotiating decreases drastically and paying your dues becomes an expense that has no benefit.  It is going to be an interesting year for the unions.

Money.msn.com is reporting today that the U. S. Government has awarded Black & Veatch a no-bid contract for an electricity project in southern Afghanistan.  Last year the Government had promised a competitive bidding process on the contract.

The article reports:

"In January 2010, USAID said companies would compete for the electricity project, awarded to Black & Veatch Corp. of Overland Park, Kansas, a company that the agency earlier had chastised for big cost overruns and busted deadlines on a diesel-fueled power plant in Kabul. But the government let 10 months pass before deciding to award a contract without competitive bids, saying that it couldn't spend more time seeking offers.

"A rival company that was interested in bidding, Symbion Power LLC of Washington, D.C., said USAID broke its promise and spent more than it should to expand electricity into war-ravaged Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan."

I have no way of knowing whether this is sour grapes on the part of Symbion Power or if there is something underhanded about the way this was done.  One of the practices that has long been a problem within our government is the awarding of no-bid contracts to people who have in some way gained favor with an administration.  I hope that this is not an example of that process.  I would hope that Congress will put this contract on its list of things it needs to look into.

Back in the days of dinosaurs (the 1950's), kindergarten was a place where you learned to build with blocks, paint, and get along with your fellow classmates.  Your teacher read stories, you had snacks, and generally speaking, life was good.  Somewhere between then and now kindergarten changed--not necessarily for the better.  Now kindergarteners write, begin to read, learn their numbers, etc.  It's much more complicated.  I don't know if they still learn how to get along with their fellow classmates, which brings me to the point of this article.

Yesterday Hot Air reported that Keith Olbermann abruptly left MSNBC.  In 2008 Mr. Olbermann had signed a four-year contract extension, so his departure was rather sudden.  The article reports that an agreement to end the contract between MSNBC and Mr. Olbermann was reached at the end of last week, but kept secret until last night.

Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story that reports:

"Olbermann returned from one last commercial break on "Countdown" to tell viewers it was his last broadcast, and read a James Thurber short story in a three-minute exit statement. Simultaneously, MSNBC e-mailed a statement that "MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract." The network thanked him and said, "we wish him well in his future endeavors.""

The story at Hot Air has many updates that were added as the situation developed, but the overall conclusion is not reached until the end of the article:

"In recent weeks, sources tell Mediaite there have been meetings on the topic of Keith Olbermann and his future at the network. Did Comcast-as many Countdown viewers seem to suspect-order Olbermann out? It appears that the end of the Olbermann era at MSNBC was not "ordered" by Comcast, nor was it a move to tone down the network's politics. Instead, sources inside the network say it came down to the more mundane world of office politics-Olbermann was a difficult employee, who clashed with bosses, colleagues and underlings alike, and with the Comcast-related departure of Jeff Zucker, and the rise of Maddow and O'Donnell, the landscape shifted, making an Olbermann exit suddenly seem well-timed."

The bottom line here seems to be that Keith Olbermann never learned the lessons of kindergarten.  He was a difficult employee, and despite the fact that he brought viewers to the network, the network decided that it was not worth it.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about one of the latest investigations of the Obama Justice Department--the Department that has refused to deal with the voter intimidation issue caused by the New Black Panthers.

Common Cause has written a letter to Attorney General Holder charging an ethics violation by Supreme Court justices Scalia and Thomas.  This is the complaint:

"Common Cause hereby formally requests that the Justice Department promptly investigate whether Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case under 28 U.S.C. § 455. If the Department finds sufficient grounds for disqualification of either Justice, we request that the Solicitor General file a Rule 60(b) motion with the full Supreme Court seeking to vacate the judgment."

So what exactly did the two judges do?  They were unpaid guest speakers at seminars sponsored by Koch Industries. 

The article points out:

"Common Cause writes that "no mention of such an event is listed on the Justices' disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009." I assume they are talking about financial disclosure forms, and that the justices' speeches at the Koch seminars weren't listed because they weren't compensated."

Common cause claims that since Koch Industries (along with every other corporation in the country) had its free speech rights confirmed in the Citizens United case, there was a conflict of interest.

John Hinderaker concludes:

"So, let's add this up: Justices Thomas and Scalia accepted invitations to give speeches, presumably on legal topics, to a high-level audience of business people and other leaders. They weren't paid for doing so. The events were sponsored by one of America's most respected companies. That company, like every corporation in the United States, had its First Amendment rights confirmed in the Citizens United case. And Common Cause seriously claims that Scalia and Thomas violated ethics rules by failing to recuse themselves from that case?

"The claim is risible, but then, Eric Holder is the Attorney General, so perhaps anything is possible."

Let's hope this silliness does not go forward.  I will be willing to limit corporate spending in elections when union spending in elections is also limited.  Don't hold your breath!

One of the things we sometimes forget when we look at the war in Afghanistan is how the women of the country were treated under the Taliban.  One of the projects our soldiers have taken on in that country is to restore some basic rights to the women of Afghanistan. 

On January 11, Stars and Stripes reported on a radio program based in Southern Afghanistan which will help bring literacy to the people of the country. 

The article reports:

"Afghanistan has the third lowest literacy rate in the world, with less than 30 percent of its population able to read or write. According to a 2007 United Nations report, in rural Helmand province, the rate is even lower: 8 percent for men and just 1 percent for women.

"Maj. Nina D'Amato, ISAF Regional Command -- Southwest's education officer and gender adviser, said Soviet and Taliban rulers intentionally crippled the education system.

""You just don't get literacy rates that low doing nothing," she said. "You have to bring them down.""

This is one of the places where we can truly make a difference in Afghanistan.  One of the non-military people attempting to bring literacy to Afghanistan in recent years is Greg Mortenson, author of the book, THREE CUPS OF TEA.   He also focuses on teaching women and children how to read.

The article at Stars and Stripes reports:

"(Maj.) D'Amato said about 21,000 girls now are attending elementary schools. But they must be separated and taught by female teachers after the sixth grade. The Taliban twice burned down a girls' school in Helmand last spring, she said -- and twice it was rebuilt -- and supplies and teachers, especially female teachers, are often scarce.

"But the main target for the radio program is women 25 to 40 years old, D'Amato said, who've never set foot in a school, or many other places without a male relative escort. "If they're not going to come to us, we'll go to them," she said.

"Being literate could elevate the women's status in a tribal culture that treats them as property, almost like livestock.

""You become valuable: Now you have a skill," she said. "You can make a greater contribution to the well-being of the family, you can understand things like public health issues. If you can read a land document, you become a lot more valuable than a donkey."

"It's unclear how effective the new program will be, but there's nowhere to go but up."

There are cultural gaps between the West and the East that we may never be able to bridge or understand, but helping people learn and giving them the ability to learn is a gift that will change lives.  I wish the military much success with this program.

Every now and then I truly feel like a dinosaur--a very old extinct species.  This article is not a comment on anyone's morality--it is simply a reaction to changes that those of us over the age of fifty have seen in recent years.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that Berkeley, California, may set aside $20,000 a year to reimburse municipal employees for sex-reassignment surgery.  Berkeley is currently facing $252.8 million in deficits for pensions, disability and worker's compensation.

While you contemplate that scenario, I would like to add a personal observation.  One of my daughters was an art teacher before she retired to be a full-time mom.  She currently volunteers in her local elementary school (in California) as an art teacher in her childrens' classrooms.  Why is she volunteering?  Because the school budget has been cut to the point where elementary school children do not get art and music classes as a routine part of their curriculum.

I simply don't understand the priorities on the people setting the budget for municipal governments.  Admittedly, my daughter is not in Berkeley, but what does Berkeley represent?  Is it an aberration or an indication of things to come?  I don't know, but I feel like a dinosaur.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article entitled, "Can't We All Just Get Along?"  The article refers to an article submitted to the Washington Post in response to a discussion topic on Muslim-Christian relations posted by Elizabeth Tenety of the Post.  The article was submitted by Willis Elliott, a contributor to the Washington Post's "On Faith" Blog.  The Washington Post refused to publish the letter--it was published at Pajamas Media.

The discussion topic posted at the Washington Post asked how political and religious leaders in America should deal with the recent attacks on Christians in Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt and the Pakistani government's enforcement of its blasphemy law, which threatens minorities.

Mr. Elliott points out in his response:

"Blasphemy (irreverent speech or action against a deity or religious person/belief/object) is currently in the news only when Muslims become violent, or threaten violence, when they feel offended: when we Christians feel offended, almost never do we become violent, and almost always we suffer the disrespect in silence.

"In the New Testament (and other early Christian literature), much is said about nonviolence, never is violence commanded or even suggested; it is forbidden. Not so, early Muslim literature. The contrast is to be expected: Jesus was anti-violent, Muhammad was violent (a military leader as well as a religious leader). ...

"...Islam was, from its start, majority-minded; and Muslims don't know how to behave when they are not in power: it enrages them, makes them thin-skinned to "blasphemy," drives them to achieve power and impose sharia, even motivates some of them to martyr-suicide in killing any they consider enemies of Allah."

These are horribly inconvenient facts, but they are, in fact, true.  There are moderate Muslims who do not believe in the call to turn all the world into dar es salam (a peaceful world under Allah), but they have been threatened into silence by the actions of the more radical elements of the religion.  Until the Muslim religion polices itself and gets rid of its radical element, there is no room for cooperation between Christianity and Islam.  

As the author of a blog called "Right Wing Granny," I don't support a lot of the policies and ideas of Joe Lieberman.  However, I think Senator Lieberman did his best to be true to his ideas and to represent the people who elected him.  I am truly sorry to see him planning not to run in 2012.

CNS News posted a story today on Senator Lieberman's decision not to run for office in 2012.  Senator Lieberman caucused with the Democrats, but did not always vote the party line. He angered the Democrats on numerous occasions--he ran as in Independent in 2006 after losing a primary race for the Democrat candidacy. 

The article at CNS News lists some of the actions of Senator Lieberman the gained him respect from Republicans and dislike from Democrats:

"Top Democrats such as Obama and Sen. Christopher Dodd who had supported Lieberman in the 2006 primary instead backed Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in the fall general election. Lieberman was disappointed that some old friends weren't loyal to him.

"In the years since, he aligned himself with Democrats in the Senate, who permitted him to chair a committee in return. Yet in 2008 he supported McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, who put the Connecticut lawmaker on his list of potential vice presidential running mates.

"Lieberman's decision to speak at the 2008 GOP presidential nominating convention angered Democrats, and the speech he gave contrasting Obama to McCain angered them more."

This is a man who has always tried to do what is in the best interests of America.  All of us will miss him in the Senate.

Yesterday Steven Hayward at the Ashbrook Center Blog posted an article about the recent comments by some news opinion people expressing a desire to go back to the 1980's when politics was much more 'civil.'

Chris Matthews, not known to be a bastion of civility, posted an article in the Washington Post "looking back with nostalgia on the wonderful comity between Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan."  It seems as if Mr. Matthews managed to leave a few things out of his history lesson.  The article at Ashbrook Center Blog cites this quote from Tip O'Neill about Ronald Reagan:

"The evil is in the White House at the present time.  And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He's cold.  He's mean. He's got ice water for blood."

Maybe I'm a little oversensitive, but this doesn't seem all that civil to me.  The article reminds us:

"As Reagan's 100^th birthday approaches next month, don't be taken in by all the liberals who now say what a wonderful guy he was or how much more civil things were then compared to that dreadful woman from the northern territories today.  Funny how liberals always seem to discern the virtues of conservatives only after they're dead and gone."

At the risk of thoroughly undermining the new political correctness trying to take over our polical dialogue, for people on the left side of the political spectrum, the only good conservative is a dead conservative or a conservative out of office.  Let's not let those on the left rewrite the history of political debate in America.

Today's Boston Business Journal posted a story online about Evergreen Solar.  Evergreen Solar is based in Marlborough, Massachusetts.  The company plans to cut 800 of its 925 Massachusetts jobs and close its factory at Devens, Massachusetts, by the end of March Sometimes the closing (or moving) of a factory isn't noteworthy, but in this case the closing of the factory is only part of the story.

The state directly invested into the company as part of its program to encourage green energy.  The amount of investment has been reported as high as $58 million and as low as $30 million, depending on the source.  Economic development secretary Greg Bialecki has stated that the state hopes to recover about $13 million from the company.  Bialecki claims that the $58 million figure includes future benefits which were not actually paid.  The company says that it actually only owes $3 to $4 million since it 'over-achieved' on its job creation promises.

Did I mention why the plant is closing?  They will be moving their operation to China, where manufacturing costs are lower.  One thing we need to remember is that businesses are in business to make money.  If they are not making money, there is no reason for them to be in business.  If Massachusetts wants businesses to locate here, it needs to create a business environment that allows businesses to make a profit.

Holly Robichaud points out in her Lone Republican blog at the Boston Herald:

"The Evergreen situation shows why government shouldn't be the decision-maker on the viability of businesses.  It further proves that the Democrat way does not work.  The philosophy of government knowing best is wrong. 

"For businesses to succeed in Massachusetts, we should not be handing out money, but rather creating a better business climate.  Our Governor should be looking at the cost of doing business here in the Commonwealth.  For example, we have the most generous benefits for unemployment insurance which is funded by the business community.  We are also number one in the costs for health insurance."

Thank you, Holly, for wisdom.  I wish the State House and State Legislation in Massachusetts would listen.

National Review Online's Planet Gore Blog posted an article yesterday about the relationship between oil prices and economic growth. 

The article quotes this weeks "Fiscal Times:"

"A 2006 paper from the U.S. Energy Information Agency said, "most of the major economic downturns in the United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region since the 1970s have been preceded by sudden increases in crude oil prices.""

The article also points out that the economic collapse in 2008 was preceded by about six months of oil prices that were at or above $100 a barrel.

Also from the "Fiscal Times:"

"James Hamilton of UC San Diego produced a report in 2009 saying that higher oil prices in 2007-2008 impacted domestic spending and auto purchases to such an extent that "in the absence of those declines, it is unlikely that we would have characterized the period 2007 to 2008 as one of economic recession for the U.S.""

Why am I stating these rather obvious facts?  Well, the article also notes that President Obama has essentially shut down domestic oil production. 

The article reports:

"Last week, Greenwire reported that there were fewer new wells drilled for oil on public lands in 2010 than in any other year in the past decade, and that as many as two-thirds of the permits issued to the oil and gas industry for drilling on federal lands were unused.

"Kathleen Sgamma, government-affairs director for the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, said the Obama administration's regulations have discouraged new drilling in the West, where BLM controls some 250 million acres. "We were surprised," Sgamma said, "to see just how much the additional regulatory burden has discouraged drilling in the West.""

We have a choice here--we can do what is necessary to allow our country to thrive economically or we can cripple our own industries in the name of an unproven theory.  If this Obama Administration would like to end the recession and see two-terms for President Obama (God help us!), opening up drilling inside America would be a giant step forward in that direction. 

Today's Washington Examiner is reporting that Iran has blocked approximately 2,500 fuel trucks from delivering fuel to Afghanistan since late December.  Iran supplies about thirty percent of Afghanistan's refined fuel, the rest, from Iraq and Turkmenistan, transits Iran. 

Teheran has stated that the blockade is part of an effort to slash domestic fuel subsidies in order to cut costs (Iran is being squeezed economically by international sanctions), and also expressed a fear that some of the fuel would be going to NATO forces operating in Afghanistan.  How the fuel is being used should not be their concern!  (Although Afghan leaders say that the fuel is for Afghan use--not NATO.)

When the blockade began, fuel prices rose from $900 a ton to about $1,500.  Iran has let some of the trucks through since late December, and prices have now dropped to about $1,350 a ton. 

Afghan businessmen have vowed to stop doing business with Iran until the blockade is stopped.  There is a very important reason for Americans to pay attention to this situation.  Iran controls a major part of the world's oil.  Because America has refused to develop her own resources, we are subject to blackmail by Iran because of our dependence on their oil.  Until we have our own oil resources, we will not be able to halt their nuclear program or protest the human rights violations of their government.  Our President and Congressional leaders are doing America a great disservice by blocking drilling in America--both offshore and in Alaska.  We need to remember that at the ballot box.

A website called Emirates247 posted a story on Monday about using 'human maps' in Afghanistan. 

According to the article:

"Troops in the region and across Afghanistan are gathering photographs, fingerprints and employment details as well as canvassing opinions from local residents to find out what they want for the war-racked province.

"The goal is to strengthen relations between pro-government forces and the local population."

Please follow the link above to see the entire article.  It gives some insight into what our troops are up against.  As I read the article, I though of Al Capone's Chicago.  People lived in fear of the controlling, brutal gangs.  Life in Afghanistan for the average person must be something like that. 

The article reports:

"Mohammad Sahim, a 32-year-old farmer, stressed that he knows "nothing at all" about the Taliban. As for improvements he would like to see in the local area, he stresses "food, water and a hospital".

"Staff Sergeant Alan Cable, who is asking the questions, said that such reticence about the Taliban is typical. "People usually say that they don't know anything," he explained."

Until the Afghan people feel secure and safe and are willing to work with American forces, we are wasting everyone's time.  I am moderately optimistic because General Petraeus is in charge, but it would be more optimistic if I felt that he were truly calling the shots.

If you listened to the news recently, you were told that the number of people who support the repeal of Obamacare is decreasing.  Note that you are being told this just as the House of Representatives is preparing to vote to repeal Obamacare.  Why is that?  It's so that any wimpy lawmakers will think that supporting repeal might cost them at the ballot box in 2012.  Nevermind the fact that voting for Obamacare cost many lawmakers at the ballot box in 2010.

Well, when you look behind the numbers, what you are being told is not necessarily true.  John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday explaining how the poll taken on the repeal of Obamacare was skewed.  If you follow the link above to the article, you will see three charts showing how the poll was taken.  The difference in the numbers is whether the people asked the question were likely voters or not.  When likely voters were asked (the Rasmussen Poll) whether or not they supported the repeal of Obamacare, fifty-five percent supported repeal.  The number of likely voters supporting repeal has been constantly between fifty-three and sixty percent since the end of August.

On January 14, Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article about the ongoing legal battles between the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA) K-8 public charter school in suburban St. Paul and the ACLU Minnesota.  I am generally not a supporter of the ACLU either on a state or federal level, but in this case they are right to bring this lawsuit.  Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy K-8 public charter school appears to be an Islamic school operating illegally at taxpayer expense. 

The article states:

"Among other things, school executive director Asad Zaman is an imam and almost all of its students are Muslim. As a charter school it was originally sponsored by Islamic Relief USA. The school is housed in a building that was owned by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota. The study of Arabic is required at the school. The Arabic comes in handy for the Koranic studies that follow the regular school day."

The Minnesota ACLU brought a lawsuit challenging the legality of the school's operation on public funds; the lawsuit is pending in federal court in Minnesota.  When Church Samuelson, ACLU executive director of the ACLU Minnesota, made the statement,  "The issue with TiZA, frankly, was the incredible commingling of church and state. It's a theocratic school. It is as plain as the substantial nose on my face,"  TiZA claimed that the ACLU had defamed the school.  The school asserted several counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota for amounts in excess of $100,000 (i.e., an unlimited amount). 

The article further reports:

"The ACLU Minnesota's lawsuit against TiZA is predicated on the establishment clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I was quite sure that there was another clause of the First Amendment that applied to TiZA's counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota, but even the common law of defamation provides that truth is a defense.

"In the event, Minnesota federal district Judge Donovan Frank summarily dismissed TiZA's counterclaims. In an order issued in late 2009, Judge Frank held that, as a public school, TiZA could not assert a claim for defamation."

There is more to this story.  Through the discovery process as the litigation has gone forward, the Minnesota Department of Education discovered that TiZA has made multiple misrepresentations to the Department.

The article concludes:

"(Star Tribune metro columnist Katherine)Kersten concluded her most recent column on TiZA with this pointed observation: "Every time we read about this lawsuit, we have to pinch ourselves and say: We're talking about a public, taxpayer-funded school." The pending lawsuit is important, and not just for the result to which it might give rise when it is concluded. Along the way it is producing revelations that deserve attention regardless of the result."

If you follow some of the recent court cases and lawsuits involving Muslims, you realize that the actions of TiZA follow a pattern.  When confronted with the truth of what they were doing, they charged defamation.  One of the methods of Islamists who are radical is to use our judicial system against us.  Even if they cannot win a case, they can sufficiently drain the resources of their adversaries and discourage other actions against their Muslim agenda.  There are many peace-loving Muslims who are as offended by these actions as are most Americans.  We need them to speak up in opposition to the sort of behavior.

Obamacare was a 2,000+ page bill passed in the dead of night without anyone having read it.  We are just now finding out exactly what is in it.  The more I learn, the more I want the bill repealed.  I am not opposed to healthcare reform--I think we need it.  I am opposed to a government takeover of healthcare disguised as reform.  There are three basic things that could be done to improve health insurance for all Americans without a government takeover of healthcare.  They are very simple--tort reform, portability of health insurance across state lines, and tax credits for people buying health insurance.  I know that one of the concerns in passing healthcare reform was the people who could not afford health insurance.  That is a valid concern.  We also need to remember that there are many young people who simply do not see the need for health insurance.  They make up a large portion of the uninsured.  As far as not being able to afford health insurance, I posted an article (RightWingGranny.com) on December 10th of last year showing the impact of government tax policies and assistance policies on people at various income levels.  Please review the chart at the above link before you say too much about people who can't afford health insurance.  I am sure we can find a way to give them a tax credit to help them.

Anyway, the purpose of the above rant is to direct you to the website of Americans For Tax Reform.  On Friday they posted a list of all the tax increases written into Obamacare.  We now have passed the bill and found out what was in it, and it isn't good.  Please follow the link to see the detailed list. 

A few of the tax increases:

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax

Flexible Spending Account Cap - aka"Special Needs Kids Tax"

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies

Tax on Health Insurers

You get the picture.  Please follow the link to the Americans For Tax Reform website to learn more.  Repeal is needed.  Repeal and replace is a really good idea.

Yesterday Newsbusters posted a story about a segment to be aired on ABC's "This Week" today.  The segment was about a town hall meeting held as part of the healing process after the shootings in Tucson last Saturday. 

The news segment that was aired left out a rather significant item.  The article reports:

"As NewsBusters previously reported, a survivor of last week's Tucson shootings issed a death threat to a Tea Party member Saturday in the middle of a taping for a town hall meeting to be aired on ABC's "This Week."

"For some reason, ABC World News Saturday in its report about the gathering chose to omit the seriousness of the threat and that it was made to a Tea Partier."

The article at NewsBusters gives videos and a full account of what actually happened.  It was very misleading for ABC to leave out the fact that there was a threat made to a Tea Partier.  All of us need to realize that volatile rhetoric happens on both sides of the political spectrum.  We also need to realize that to disagree with someone's political ideas is not hate speech.  There need to be two sides in order to have meaningful debate.

Please follow the above link to read the entire story.

The American Thinker posted a short article on its website today about the t-shirts given out at the memorial service for the people killed in the shooting in Arizona last Saturday.  The President's speech was perfect for the event--it had exactly the tone it needed and was very well done, but the t-shirts really bothered me.

The article reports:

"The "Together We Thrive" T-shirts that starred at Wednesday's Arizona `Memorial' originated from Organizing for America (here), a sad fact unearthed by The Drumbeat of Liberty and the Preservation of Freedom editor and Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Robert Rohlfing.

(snip)

"the mainstream media reported that the "Together We Thrive: Tucson & America" T-shirt given to mourners as they entered McKate Center was the idea of University of Arizona brass, not the Obama administration.

Yet the "Together We Thrive" slogan dates back to a post to Obama's own Organizing for America in a Feb. 11, 2008 post by self-described "globalist" John Berry IV.

"More than passing strange that the Obama campaign message of civility was the same on Feb. 11, 2008 as it was in his Wednesday Memorial speech, and the same one, too carried by the mainstream media in coverage of the Memorial."

What were they thinking?

Tomorrow's edition of the New Zealand Herald features a story about the results of a very interesting poll. 

According to the article:

"The poll, published this week, asked 1000 Arab residents of East Jerusalem if they would prefer becoming citizens of a Palestinian state or of Israel. Thirty five per cent chose Israel. Thirty per cent chose Palestine."

The article also points out that when the wall was being built to protect Israel from terrorist attacks, many Palestinians made sure they lived on the Israeli side of the wall--living conditions were better, employment opportunities were better, etc.

The article concludes:

"The results do not negate the authenticity of the Palestinians' desire for a state of their own, something that history has denied them until now. The polls suggest, however, that in real life jobs and political stability trump the fanfare of history."

Among other things, I think it is very interesting that the author of this article points out that "history has denied them (the Palestinians, a state of their own) until now."  Doesn't that totally undermine their supposed justification for wanting to be a state--that it was their land?

As prices at the grocery store begin to climb, Americans need to know some of the causes of the increase.  One cause is the increasing cost of gasoline.  That increase can be traced to OPEC's goal of $100 a barrel oil and America's unwillingness to develop its own energy resources.  The other reason for the increase of cost at the grocery store is what has happened to the Central Valley in California.  The water which irrigates the Central Valley has been turned off the protect a small, inedible fish called the delta smelt.  Hot Air posted a video yesterday explaining the consequences of government actions.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

"The crisis in the Central Valley comes directly from the application of the Endangered Species Act to the Delta smelt, one of a number of bait fish species indigenous to the area.  The order by a federal judge relying on that law cut off irrigation to a massive area of arable land and created a vast wasteland out of a farming bonanza, all to protect one species of inedible fish.  Congress needs to curtail the ESA and get the water turned back on in the valley."

I drove through the Central Valley last summer.  There was signs everywhere saying, "Stop the Pelosi, Reid Dust Bowl."  The people who live there are suffering economically due to government policies.  It's time the power of the government to put honest people out of business was curtailed.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about Vice-President Joe Biden's comments regarding the payroll tax cuts.  The Vice-President has stated that "Payroll tax cut will create jobs."   Mr. Hinderaker points out some of the conclusions we can draw from that statement.  If the payroll tax cut will create jobs, what impact was the tax having on unemployment before it was cut and what impact will restoring it in two years have?  If the tax was a drag on the economy before it was cut, won't it be a drag on the economy when it is restored?  Hmmmm.

The article reports:

"But wait, there's more! This wonderful tax cut, presumably unlike bad Republican tax cuts, won't increase the deficit at all! That's because we're going to restore the tax in two years, see....and in the meantime, see, Uncle will just apply general revenues to the Social Security Trust Fund [sic] so Bubba doesn't have to worry about that either! I am a bit confused, though, Joe....when we restore the payroll tax cut we won't actually be recovering the foregone payroll tax revenue from the two year period of the cut, will we? And we're not increasing other taxes --- we're preserving all of the Bush tax cuts!! --- or reducing spending.....so either there is a large revenue hole for the two year period and perforce an increase in the deficit....OR we will claw back the cut in which case what possible economic stimulus effect will there be if Bubba has to pay back the payroll tax holiday on top of the restored payroll tax going forward ? Help me out here, Joe....."

I'm still trying to figure out why people who have been screaming that Social Security is going broke are willing to take more money away from it.  Could it be that in the future they will blame the coming financial woes of Social Security on this tax cut to avoid admitting that they have been stealing money from Social Security funds since the 1960's?

The article comments on Social Security:

"And I love the sly reference to "[c]critics [who] have been spreading misinformation that the payroll tax cut will threaten the solvency of Social Security". And who would those "critics" be? The left! Democrats! The Obama administration's putative supporters, that's who! And, Joe, thanks for spreading the disinformation about the "general revenues" going "into" the Trust Fund [sic], too. But, admittedly, here you do have a point--"the payroll tax cut will have no financial impact on Social Security"--but that's because, as I am sure you know, Joe, the whole funding side of Social Security is a sham anyway! There is no "Trust Fund" in any meaningful sense and Social Security is more-or-less bankrupt and insolvent on an actuarial basis already, so it couldn't be affected."

With the advent of the Tea Party, we have begun to get some of the influence of special interest groups out of Congress.  It will take at least two more elections to finish the process.  At that point, the American people may have the opportunity to get their country back!

On December 26, 2010, MSNBC reported:

"The global economy can withstand an oil price of $100 a barrel, Kuwait's oil minister said on Saturday, as other exporters indicated OPEC may decide against increasing output through 2011 as the market was well supplied."

How long have we been debating drilling in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?  Snopes.com has some great pictures and information on exactly what would be involved in ANWR drilling and the consequences.  The people who have blocked the development of America's own natural resources should be held accountable.  They should be reminded at the ballot box of the damage they have caused to America's national security and economy.

The article further reports:

"Egyptian Oil Minister Sameh Fahmy said the current increase in oil prices was the result of higher demand on heating fuel because of the cold weather in Europe.

"United Arab Emirates Oil Minister Mohammed al-Hamli said crude oil inventories are "quite high. It's the highest over the five years average... The market is well supplied.""

It is very apparent that if America intends to maintain its position as a world power, we need to become self sufficient in energy.  We need to elect leaders who understand this--evidently many of our current leaders are fine with $5 a gallon gasoline.  Most Americans are not.

NBCBayArea.com posted this picture found on the wall on a San Francisco Street.  I don't see how the left can talk about civility when you look at the way they treat Sarah Palin and the way they treated George Bush.  The inflammatory rhetoric is not only on the right--it is on both sides, and each side need to police its speakers and its actors.

Military.com reported last week that one of the proposals on the table for cutting the Defense Department budget is to increase the cost of TRICARE for the military.  TRICARE is the health care program serving Uniformed Service members, retirees and their families worldwide.

The article reports:

"But (Defense Secretary Robert) Gates insisted that the changes (increases) will "better align the department with the rest of the country," and strengthen the military health care system in the long run. The new TRICARE fees are expected to be included in the fiscal 2012 defense budget proposal, to be unveiled next month."

TRICARE is the medical program that is free to active duty military and their families.  Retired military and their surviving spouses and families have to pay the yearly charge.   I have a few problems with this statement. first of all, a young enlisted man makes about $1,600 a month.  For this he has to put up with separations from his family, no input on where he will live, no input on when he will work and when he will not.  He also has to deal with nights that he will be away from his family because he is standing watch somewhere.  He has no assurance that he will be able to spend holidays with his family or be there for the birth of his children.  If he does this for 20 years, he is eligible for TRICARE at a cost of $460 a year for the basic family plan.  Secretary Gates wants to bring this cost closer to what is paid in the private sector.  NO WAY!!!  If you are going to bring the costs up to the private sector, how about increasing the pay of the military up to the private sector and letting them work 40 hours a week and be home with their families?  These people do not retire from the private sector--they retire from the military.  They make personal and family sacrifices for twenty years in the service of their country.  Let's honor them--not try to cut the Defense Department budget on their backs!

I hope everyone reading this will send an email to their Congressman (or woman) saying what a really bad idea this is.  Are we an ungrateful country for the sacrifices these people have made?

P. S.  I am not a military spouse.  I was a Navy wife for a few years, but that was a long time ago.  If there are any factual errors in this article that a current military person or spouse sees, please leave a comment or contact me.

I don't have a lot to say about the President's speech last night.  it was a good speech and it was important that he make it as the leader of the country.  However, that being said, I have many questions about the memorial service and the events of last Saturday.  I am simply going to list them with the sources for the information.

Why in the world were t-shirts handed out at a memorial service?  Link at MichelleMalkin.com.  Usually aren't laminated cards given out with pictures of flowers and name and birthday of the person who died?  This seems very odd to me. 

Since we have already concluded (polling shows 60% of Americans believe this) that the shooting was the result of one lone mentally disturbed person, why did the t-shirts say "Together We Thrive" instead of "Please Help The Mentally Ill?"

If vitriol and hate speech comes from the conservative side, how come death threats against Sarah Palin have reached unprecedented levels since the shooting in Tucson? What in the world did Sarah Palin have to do with these events?  Link at TheStar.com.  Also--a short comment on Sarah Palin's speech on Facebook--I think that she was going to be criticized for not giving the speech if she had not given it or critized for giving it.  The only thing to do in that circumstance is what your conscience tells you. 

Does this statement (link at Wall Street Journal) add to civility:

"Frank Rich, Oct 17: "Don't expect the extremism and violence in our politics to subside magically after Election Day--no matter what the results. If Tea Party candidates triumph, they'll be emboldened. If they lose, the anger and bitterness will grow.""

There are TV and radio shows on the right-side of the political spectrum that I will not listen to because I don't like the tone.  There are also TV and radio shows on the left-side of the political spectrum that I will not listen to because I don't like the tone.  The only way to increase the civility in the public debate is for people not to listen to those pundits who are uncivil.  Since every person has their own concept of what is and is not civil, this may not have an impact because there won't be a significant change in anyone's audience. 

Political debate has two sides.  As long as "Together We Thrive" understands that there is room for different ideas, I am okay with the concept.

On Monday, CNS News reported that the Palestinian foreign minister says he will seek United Nations recognition for a Palestinian state in September.  Chile announced Sunday that it would recognize Palestine as a state.  It is the fifth South American country to do so.

The article reports:

"While a majority for Palestine in the General Assembly seems possible, recognition by the Security Council -- whose decisions are legally binding -- would likely face an American veto.

"The September target date has the month shaping up to be a crucial one for the Palestinians. It also marks the time frame for President Barack Obama's goal of reaching a peace deal and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's hope of having the foundations of the future state ready."

Recognizing Palestine at this time would not be a positive thing for peace in the Middle East.  The Palestinians want their state in the lands Israel captured in the Mideast 1967 war--the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem.  There is no legal precedent in the world for requiring a soverign nation to give up half of its capital to form another nation (particularly one that is hostile to it!).

The article points out:

"The Palestinians appear to have a majority in the General Assembly, but are unlikely to get the go-ahead in the Security Council.

"The U.S. routinely vetoes measures Israel considers hostile, and the U.S. House of Representatives last week passed a resolution "condemning unilateral measures to declare or recognize a Palestinian state."

"Israeli officials have called the recognition declarations meaningless and counterproductive to the peace process. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu opposes withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines, though he says he remains committed to negotiating a partition of the land."

I would be willing to see a Palestinian State if that state would publicly affirm the right of Israel to exist.  Until that happens, a Palestinian state would simply be a haven for anti-Israel terrorists in the Middle East.

Today's Daily Caller is reporting that senior ACORN executive Amy Adele Busefink will not be serving her two year jail sentence for conspiracy to committ voter fraud--the jail time has been suspended. 

According to the article:

"This isn't the first time Busefink was involved in shady electoral dealings. Even while under indictment in Nevada she ran the 2010 national voter drive for Project Vote, which was President Obama's employer in 1992. Project Vote and ACORN have long been indistinguishable. Project Vote still operates out of ACORN's offices in Washington, D.C.

"Busefink also ran ACORN's fraud-ridden 2008 voter registration drive. In that drive, officials chucked an astounding 400,000 bogus registrations."

This seems like an incredibly light sentence in view of the continuing offenses, but the good news is the the trial of ACORN is proceeding.

"Edie S. Cartwright, spokeswoman for the attorney general's office, said prosecutor David Rickert is preparing for the trial of ACORN which is currently scheduled for April 25. State officials said previously that bankruptcy would not prevent them from moving forward with the case.

"Across the country state chapters of ACORN, which stands for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, have been incorporating themselves separately in order to carry on ACORN's work. ACORN is reorganizing and will reemerge again soon under a new name, according to ACORN historian and housing activist John Atlas, who wrote "Seeds of Change," and ACORN executive Nathan Henderson-James."

Voter fraud is a serious problem and needs to have serious consequences for those who choose to engage in it.

One aspect of the events in Tucson on Saturday is the discussion of how much interaction should there be between elected officials and the people who elected them.  There are a certain number of troubled people out there, and any public figure takes something of a risk when he goes out in public.  How do you balance this with being available to the people who elected you?

One way to communicate is through the media.  In Rhode Island, former Governor Carcieri was a regular on Helen Glover's (local talk show) morning talk show during his years as governor, coming in "at least once a month."  Newly elected Governor Chafee has stated that not only does he not want to appear on talk radio, he does not want state employees to do so during state work time.  Obviously, making that rule is his privilege as governor, but I wonder if he has thought it through.  Governor Carcieri used talk radio to directly communicate with the voters of Rhode Island.  When the Governor did something that might be controversial, talk radio gave him a chance to explain it to the voters.  Talk radio also allowed voters to ask questions and make suggestions.  It worked very well as an unfiltered communications device.  As far as state workers on talk radio, how useful could that be in the case of a snow emergency or hurricane?  Talk radio is one way people communicate in today's world.  I would suggest to Governor Chafee that he consider how talk radio might be an asset to him rather than dismissing it for himself and banning it for others.

A 6-YEAR-OLD WAS ASKED WHERE HIS GRANDMA LIVED. ''OH,'' HE SAID, ''SHE LIVES AT THE AIRPORT, AND WHEN WE WANT HER, WE JUST GO GET HER. THEN WHEN WE'RE DONE HAVING HER VISIT, WE TAKE HER BACK TO THE  AIRPORT.''

After putting her grandchildren to bed, a grandmother changed into old slacks and a droopy blouse and proceeded to wash her hair.  As she heard the children getting more and more rambunctious, her patience grew thin.  Finally, she threw a towel around her head and stormed into their room, putting them back to bed with stern warnings.  As she left the room, she heard the three-year-old say with a trembling voice, 'Who was THAT?'

When my grandson asked me how old I was, I teasingly replied, 'I'm not sure.'  'Look in your underwear, Grandpa,' he advised.  'Mine says I'm four to six.'

When my grandson Melvin and I entered our vacation cabin, we kept the lights off until we were inside to keep from attracting pesky insects.  Still, a few fireflies followed us in.  Noticing them before I did, Billy whispered, 'It's no use Grandpa.  Now the mosquitoes are coming after us with flashlights.'  

Today's Daily Caller reports that U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue is vowing war on Obama's "regulatory tsunami." 

According to the article:

"...Obama is poised to advance an agenda that includes unilateral global warming regulations at the Environmental Protection Agency and, critics fear, a version of union-promoting "card check" by administrative fiat."

In case you are wondering why the unions are pushing so hard for members, there are a number of reasons.  First of all, more members means more power--more dues to inject into political races, more influence in Washington, more money to play with, and secondly, union pension funds have not been required to meet the cash-on-hand requirements of private company pensions, and union pensions are about the run out of money.  They are in a position similar to Social Security--if they can recruit a number of new members to pay dues and money into retirement funds, they may be able to avoid the embarrassment of bankrupt pension funds.  Social Security would accomplish the same thing if suddenly millions of illegals became legal and began paying into the program.  It wouldn't solve the problem in either case, but it would push the problem down the road so that the people who actually caused it wouldn't look responsible for it!

Two particular areas of legislation were cited in the article:

""The new health-care law creates 159 new agencies, commissions, panels and other bodies," he said. "We see the upcoming House vote [on repeal] as an opportunity for everyone to take a fresh look at health-care reform."

"On the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, Donohue cited the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as his top concern.

""We are particularly concerned that" the new agency "not use its broad authority in ways that deny small businesses and consumers the credit and financial products they need," he said."

This could be a very interesting Congressional session!  I heard a comment today that Bill Gates would not be able to start Microsoft in today's regulatory environment.  If that is true, it is very sad.

Today's Worcester Telegram & Gazette posted an article reporting on the charges of voter fraud during the November 2010 election. 

According to the article:

"The Election Commission last night discussed a response from the secretary of state's office on allegations of voter fraud leveled after the Nov. 2 election."

Many of the charges centered around the actions of a group called Neighbor to Neighbor (NTN) on election day.  The poll watchers charged that NTN volunteers accompanied voters into the voting booth, telling them how to vote, and in some cases filling out ballots for the voters. 

According to the article, this is the response from the Secretary of State:

"The response, signed by Michelle K. Tassinam of the secretary of state's Elections Division, instead outlined some of the election laws referenced in the original allegations, and asked for more information before it can make a definitive ruling.  She wrote that the secretary of state's office would also be happy to set up a meeting to discuss the issues further."

I may have gotten cynical in my old age, but this strikes me as pollitical speak for "we are going to bury this for as long as possible and hope that we don't have to act on it."  Hopefully I am wrong on this.  One man--one vote is a cornerstone of our republic.  We need to respect that.

According to one person who attended the meeting

"The Commission discussed updating the voter lists as required by law. Bonnie pointed out the appearance of a voter who had been listed twice, as both a Democrat and an Independent. She also discussed her challenge to a voter and the difficulty in how she was received when voicing that objection at a precinct on Election day. She pushed the Commission to respond to how an individual corrects this, what procedure does a voter follow when they are listed multiple times in a voter list. They discussed an annual street listing mailer with postage paid return card. There's still a great deal to be done to clean up voter lists."

Yesterday's Atlanta Journal Constitution reported that General Petraeus stated "that a recent pledge by a southern Afghan tribe to stand up to the Taliban shows the military push in the country's most violent region is making headway and stifling the insurgents' "central nervous system.""

The article reports:

"A prime indicator of this success, Petraeus said, is the announcement by the Alikozai tribe that they would halt insurgent attacks and expel foreign fighters from one of the most violent spots in the country -- Helmand's Sangin district. The expansion of both NATO and Afghan forces in the region has made such a move much more tenable that it would have been a year ago, he said."

In return, NATO quickly pledged to support the Alikozai tribe by bringing in schools and finishing a key road in the area. 

Although this is a great turn of events, it does not really guarantee anything.  The article further points out:

"Success is far from guaranteed. Disenchanted Alikozai tried to rebel against the Taliban in 2007 but failed because of a lack of resources and coalition help. And a similar move by the Shinwari tribe in eastern Afghanistan last year was at first lauded as a major step forward by U.S. commanders until the Afghan government turned against the idea, saying that NATO was undermining its authority by working directly with the elders.

""That was an earlier time. That was back in the exploration stages," Petraeus said, noting that Karzai has since set up a formal reintegration process to accommodate those who want to realign themselves with the government. He said the growth of the Afghan security forces has made it easier to support those who do take a stand."

I believe that if anyone can win the war in Afghanistan, General Petraeus can.  I just finished reading Charlie Wilson's War and was amazed both by the courage and the brutality of the Afghan fighters.  The problem seems to be that when there is no strong central government, they simply attack each other.  Hopefully, we can establish a cohesive country that will protect its people and the freedom of its people.  The book was an eye-opener.

Glenn Reynolds posted an editorial  in today's Wall Street Journal about the mainstream media and Democrat political reaction to the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords and the other victims.  On a personal level, I must admit that I am concerned about the obsession that some of the media and many of the Democrats have with Sarah Palin.  The woman does not currently hold public office, she is not currently running for anything, and the media and some Democrats credit her with incredible power.  She seems like a nice, straight-forward lady who is very direct in voicing her opinions.  Some of us find that attractive.

Anyway, back to the editorial.  Mr. Reynolds points out:

"With only the barest outline of events available, pundits and reporters seemed to agree that the massacre had to be the fault of the tea party movement in general, and of Sarah Palin in particular. Why? Because they had created, in New York Times columnist Paul Krugman's words, a "climate of hate.""

Mr. Reynolds challenges those who themselves are blaming others for the character assassination they practice:

"To be clear, if you're using this event to criticize the "rhetoric" of Mrs. Palin or others with whom you disagree, then you're either: (a) asserting a connection between the "rhetoric" and the shooting, which based on evidence to date would be what we call a vicious lie; or (b) you're not, in which case you're just seizing on a tragedy to try to score unrelated political points, which is contemptible. Which is it?"

It is becoming very obvious from the news reports that the shooter in Tucson was a very disturbed individual.  It is unfortunate that warning signs were observed, but they were such that no action was taken--you really can't arrest someone if they haven't done anything.  I do wonder, however, if a teacher or other person in this young man's life could have recommended him for a mental evaluation of some sort.  A perceptive mental health worker might have saved some lives.

On Firday, Investors.com posted an article about the end of the 'time-out' imposed on Mexican trucks operating in the United States.  The 'time-out' was imposed two years ago.

The article points out that:

"That's a good thing, because it will restore U.S. trade ties with our third-largest trading partner to normal. And it won't be tough for Mexico to measure up. Contrary to common perception, legal Mexican trucks have consistently passed U.S. safety inspections, outperforming even U.S. trucks. Since 2003, just 1.2% of Mexican truck drivers on U.S. roads were not out of compliance; for American drivers, the figure is 7%."

The article states that as the trade with Mexico returns to pre time-out levels, the lifting of the restrictions will save United States companies approximately $400 million in transportation costs. 

The article points out:

"Shutting the Mexican trucks out may have pleased labor unions, but it cost literally tens of thousands of American jobs in 43 states. Washington apples, California grapes and Dakota wheat all got socked with these self-inflicted tariffs. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates about 28,000 jobs were lost.

"With U.S. firms paying $2.4 billion in useless tariffs each year, money that could have been spent to upgrade equipment, boost sales or hire workers went to Mexico's government coffers instead."

When we reneged on our previous agreements and put a 'time-out' on the trucks, Mexico placed $2.4 billion in tariffs on 99 U.S.-made products in retaliation.  Hopefully an end to the shutdown will mean an end to the tariffs.

Trade wars for any reason are a really bad idea.  Hopefully we will learn from this experience.

Today's New York Post reported that an Israeli vulture, tagged in a migration study, has been arrested in Saudi Arabia for spying.  Yes, you read that right.  This comes after charges by Egypt that Mossad placed a man-eating shark in the Red Sea last month to cripple Egyptian tourism.  Right.  Let's also remember Iran's arrest of 14 squirrels in 2007 for "carrying spy gear of foreign agencies."  Remind me to check the chipmunks in my backyard--who knows what they are doing?

And we wonder why peace in the Middle East is elusive?

An Egyptian website called ahramonline.beta reported on Friday that "thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside."  The Coptic Christians celebrated Christmas on Friday.  The Muslims were there to act as human shields to prevent another attack on the Coptic Christians by extremist Muslims. 

The article states:

"In the days following the brutal attack on Saints Church in Alexandria, which left 21 dead on New Year' eve, solidarity between Muslims and Copts has seen an unprecedented peak. Millions of Egyptians changed their Facebook profile pictures to the image of a cross within a crescent - the symbol of an "Egypt for All". Around the city, banners went up calling for unity, and depicting mosques and churches, crosses and crescents, together as one."

Thank God for the courage of the Muslims who showed up at the Christian services.  Their courage and willingness to protect their fellow Egyptians regardless of religion is encouraging.

On Friday John Hinderaker at Power Line reported that on Wednesday twenty-nine House Republicans introduced a bill to do away with the "czars" appointed by President Obama.  According to the article:

"The bill defines a "czar" as "a head of any task force, council, policy office within the Executive Office of the President, or similar office established by or at the direction of the President" who is appointed to a position that would otherwise require Senate confirmation."

Mr. Hinderaker states in the article that he wonders what will happen to the bill in the Senate.  After all, the Senate is the legislative body that is responsible for confirming the President's appointments to his cabinet and other offices.  Is the Senate willing to give up its own power and responsibility in order to avoid supporting a Republican bill?  This should be interesting.

The shooting in Arizona yesterday was a tragedy.  Thanks to the heroism and basic knowledge of first aid of some of the people there, Representative Gabrielle Giffords is still alive.  Hopefully, she will recover fully.  I wonder, however, if free speech in America will survive this shooting.  I am listing six links to articles I found on the internet about the shooting.  I will excerpt some of them and let you draw your own conclusions.

Yesterday in Human Events:

"Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr., a New Jersey Democrat, blamed the Fox News Channel for today's shooting spree that left Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords critically wounded and four others slain. 

"He told a local New Jersey paper shortly after the incident, "There's an aura of hate and elected politicians feed it, certain people on Fox News feed it.""

Common sense from BigGovernment.com:

"From my vantage point, having spent several years working undercover with the Federal Bureau of Investigation on issues related to both domestic and international terrorism, I know that political violence is a human problem. It is an issue which transcends Left or Right, race, or any other confine or label we as Americans might try to place upon the age old problem. However, I also have another vantage point regarding political violence. This is, to put it simply, the personal experience of being burned by the discrepancy in how the predominantly Left oriented Mainstream Media portrays the political violence of the Left in comparison with that of the Right."

There are pictures on a website called Verum Serum of Democrat party literature using bullseyes to represent targeted Republican districts.  Democrats have said that Sarah Palin using crosshairs to represent targeted districts caused this shooting.  I guess bullseyes are different than crosshairs.  Please follow the link to see the pictures of literature sent out. 

Power Line points out that some of the people screaming 'hate speech' caused this are the same people who routinely use 'hate speech' against anyone who disagrees with them.

The Washington Examiner reminds of the press reaction to the Fort Hood shooting:

"Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive.  CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

""The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

""We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

""I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting.  "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam.""

Contrast these statements with how quickly conservatives were seen as responsible for the attack in Arizona.

My point in listing all of this is that this horrendous attack was the work of a deeply disturbed young man.  Today's Washington Post posted an article noting that he was removed from a class at a community college for being disruptive. 

Free speech is one of the foundations of democracy.  Right now our mainstream media is not doing its job of fairly reporting the news.  This fact has opened the door for alternative media that is actually reporting the news.  The thing to remember here is that just because someone disagrees with you it does not mean that they are engaging in 'hate speech.'  We are reaching a situation where the term 'hate speech' will have no meaning at all because it has been used so often in an attempt to gain political advantage.  It's time to step back, take a deep breath, and help the people who were directly impacted by this event.

Max Boot has written an article for the January 17th issue of the Weekly Standard about the proposed reductions in military spending.  Mr. Boot points out that in the past demobilization has cost us dearly. At present the Army has 566,045 active-duty soldiers.  In 2001 the number was 478,918, down from 710,821 in 1991 (at the end of the cold war). 

Mr. Boot states:

"That (current number of troops) is still too small--a force that size has too little "dwell time" at home and places too much stress on soldiers. It also imposes constraints, helping to curtail the size of the force we send to Afghanistan even though more troops could get the job done with less risk."

The defense budget accounts for less than 20 percent of federal spending.  The article points out that there have been serious cuts in weapons systems also.  As China is developing weapons to secure its place in the world, we are stepping down from our place.  This is not a good thing.  The military budget probably does have room for cuts, but they need to be carefully considered, keeping in mind that we live in a dangerous world where we are fighting two wars.  The war on terror may not end when we finally withdraw from Afghanistan.  To assume that we can cut troops and weapons now is a dangerous assumption.

Yesterday Big Government posted an article about the slow economic recover and the things that are hindering a robust economy.  The article points out that during the Bush Administration, any economic news was reported from a negative slant.  The media right now is trying to put a positive spin on economic news, but the picture at the above link tells the story better than any words!

The article lists five things that are preventing the recovery all of us are looking for:

1.  Historically high unemployment.  None of the economic experts have voiced an expectation that the 9 percent plus unemployment rate will fall in the near future.

2.  The mortgage foreclosure crisis hits the economy in a number of ways--as the value of housing falls, defaults increase, the value continues to fall, and homeowners' equity decreases.  This contributes to a feeling of uneasiness about the economy in general.

3.  Rising gas prices put a drag on economic growth.  The Obama Administration has essentially blocked development of America's carbon resources and that policy will continue to adversely impact both economic growth and trade balances.

4.  A significant increase in government regulations.  The healthcare bill alone has caused many businesses to put off expansion plans indefinitely.

5.  Large states (California, for example) with unfunded liabilities that cannot be met without government bailouts are going to be asking for federal money very soon.  This will also be a problem.

To change these factors, Congress would have to change much of the policy now enshrined in Washington, D. C.  Hopefully there are enough people in the freshman class of Congress that understand economics well enough to begin to move in the right direction.

Today's Worcester Telegram & Gazette is reporting that newly sworn in Worcester County Sheriff Lewis G. Evangelidis has ended a legal services contract with Winthrop lawyer Jeffrey R. Turco, a close friend of the previous sheriff.  Attorney Turco, who was hired under a no-bid contract, had billed the Sheriff's Department for $320,706 in legal fees as of late December.  Please follow the link above to the article to see more about the cronyism that has ended with this decision. 

I posted an article (Right Wing Granny) about Mr. Evangelidis in October after meeting him at the Southborough Heritage Day.  This is what I wrote about him then:

"Lew Evangelidis is committed to reducing the number of repeat offenders to save taxpayers' money.  He will create programs to develop crime, drug, and cyber bullying prevention programs for public schools.  His goals are simple--keeping people safe, ending patronage, saving taxpayers' money and being a community partner and educator.  Lew Evangelidis is not part of the Worcester County political machine and will bring a breath of fresh air to the office of Sheriff.  I don't get to vote for Lew Evangelidis--I don't live in his district, but he is an example of the kind of qualified, knowledgeable candidate running for office in Massachusetts this year." 

This is the kind of leadership Massachusetts desperately needs.  I wish Mr. Evangelidis continued success in meeting his goals.

Today's American Thinker reported that despite the fact that President Obama seemed to lift the deep-water drilling ban back in October, no new projects have been approved.  Even those already approved have been halted by the president's interior secretary, Ken Salazar.

The article reports:

"Once again, Obama is playing "Mother, May I?" with the energy industry.  It's good politics to appear conciliatory at a moment when gas prices are rising.  But Obama never seems to follow through.  Oil and gas production in the U.S. continues to lag.  Instead of streamlining energy production, the president has created an entirely new agency to regulate offshore drilling (the ponderously titled "Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement," or BOEMRE) and staffed it with a former Clinton Justice Department lawyer.  This new layer of federal bureaucracy, like all government bureaucracy, has done nothing but delay and forestall production.  Obviously, Obama is in no hurry to increase offshore drilling."

 

"The irony is that countries like Brazil, China, Russia, Norway, and even Israel are pressing ahead with ambitious offshore drilling projects.  In Brazil, the state petroleum company Petrobras is moving ahead with deep-water drilling in eight major offshore areas, promising to make Brazil the Saudi Arabia of the Americas.  Not only will these projects render Brazil energy-independent, but the effort will make Brazil a major oil exporter by 2020.  The result will be prosperity for the citizens of that South American country and a lower standard of living for those -- like citizens of the United States -- who are  forced to import oil from them."

"With gas prices at the pump moving up, closing in on $4 a gallon in some places, Americans have reason to be concerned.  Higher gas prices will crimp consumer spending, possibly forestalling the economic recovery now underway.  The simplest way to lower gas prices is to increase supply worldwide.  With what amounts to a complete ban on deep-water drilling in the U.S., a significant portion of that supply has been placed off bounds."

Yesterday CBS News' Political Hotseat reported that repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit by roughly $230 billion through 2021, according to a preliminary analysis of the legislation by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  Well, there are a few things they left out of the equation.  The Congressional Budge Office is nonpartisan, but it is not a research group--it is a group that simply processes the numbers they are given.  They do not investigate the validity of the numbers.

For instance, why would the deficit be increased if Obamacare was repealed?  Well, Obamacare makes severe cuts to Medicare and then counts those cuts as savings as it spends the money on Medicaid.  There are a number of obvious and less-than-obvious tax increases that are built into Obamacare which will not happen if the bill is repealed.  The article at CBS points out:

"The March health care legislation contained a set of provisions designed to expand health insurance coverage, which CBO and [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimated would have a gross cost of about $930 billion and a net cost (after accounting for certain related changes in outlays and revenues) of about $780 billion over the 2012-2019 period. Repealing that legislation would eliminate such costs. But [the health care legislation] also included a number of provisions to reduce federal outlays (primarily for Medicare) and to increase federal revenues (mostly by increasing the Hospital Insurance payroll tax and imposing fees on certain manufacturers and insurers); in March, CBO and JCT estimated that those provisions unrelated to insurance coverage would, on balance, reduce direct spending by about $500 billion and increase revenues by about $410 billion over the 2012-2019 period. If that legislation was repealed, such reductions in spending and increases in revenues would not occur. Thus, H.R. 2 would, on net, increase federal deficits over that period."

The thing to keep in mind here is common sense.  As reported at Right Wing Granny on December 29, there are already questions as to whether the estimated costs of certain provisions of Obamacare are accurate.  How can adding millions of people to health insurance rolls and government subsidizing their premiums not cost money? 

The Heritage Foundation posted an article yesterday about the CBO estimates.  The article points out that the CBO report included this disclaimer:

"Current law now includes a number of policies that might be difficult to sustain over a long period of time. ... If those provisions would have subsequently been modified or implemented incompletely, then the budgetary effects of repealing [the law] and the relevant provisions of the Reconciliation Act could be quite different--but CBO cannot forecast future changes in law or assume such changes in its estimates."

The article also reports:

"Then, Obamacare creates a new subsidy program for the middle class to purchase insurance. CBO predicts that 19 million Americans will benefit from this generous new entitlement program. But this doesn't take into account Obamacare's huge incentives for employers to drop their insurance programs and allow employees to instead purchase taxpayer-subsidized coverage. Former CBO director Doug Holtz-Eakin points out that both businesses and their employees stand to seriously benefit by dropping employer coverage and instead relying on taxpayer-subsidized health care. These incentives, combined with the various new insurance rules that will increase premiums on employer plans, will cause the cost of the subsidy program to greatly exceed expectations."

The thing to remember here is that Obamacare will probably not be repealed until there is a Republican in the White House.  As the fight intensifies, as it will, the thing to remember is that part of what is being reported as the cost of repealing Obamacare is the loss of revenue from the new taxes that are included in the bill.  The bill also includes funding for thousands of new IRS agents.  Wouldn't that increase the deficit?  The bill sees that as reducing the deficit because of the increase in taxes collected.  This is very stange accounting.

Today's American Spectator just posted a story saying that the House of Representative has passed to rules for repealing Obamacare. 

The article reports:

"Roll call is here. The four Democrats voting for it were: Larry Kissell, Dan Boren, Mike McIntyre and Mike Ross. The two Republicans whose vote was recorded as "present" were Mike Fitzpatrick and Pete Sessions, which was the result of their bungled swearing in."

The thing to remember as this process moves forward is that Obamacare is the signature legislative 'success' of the 111th Congress.  There are going to be powerful forces working against the repeal of Obamacare.  The first thing to avoid in watching this process is believing what you hear from the mainstream media.  Karl Rove posted an article at the Wall Street Journal yesterday describing the corruption written into Obamacare.  Under Obamacare, health insurance can be used as a weapon to punish enemies and reward friends.  Sound extreme?  Let's look at a few examples given in the article:

"In September, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius began granting waivers to companies that provided workers "mini-med" coverage--low-cost plans with low annual limits on what the insurance will pay out."

"According to the department's website, the waivers cover 1,507,418 employees, of which more than a third (525,898) are union members. Yet unionized workers make up only 7% of the private work force. Whatever is going on here, a disproportionately high number of waivers are being granted to administration allies."

"The AARP is also exempt from the new law's $500,000 cap on executive compensation for insurance executives."

"Nor will it (AARP) have to spend at least 85% of its Medigap premium dollars on medical claims, as Medicare Advantage plans must do; the AARP will be held to a far less restrictive 65%."

At the end of the Wall Street Journal article, Mr. Rove wisely concludes:

"In a speech at the University of Iowa last March, the president heralded health-care reform as "a new set of rules that treats everybody honestly and treats everybody fairly." Determining whether that is true will be another task for House Republicans. They have an obligation to look into this matter, and Mr. Obama can hardly object. It was former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, whom the president frequently quotes, who wrote in 1913 that sunlight "is the best of disinfectants.""

Michael Barone posted an interesting article at the Washington Examiner on Tuesday.  Michael Barone is the undisputed expert on voting districts, voting trends, which states to watch, etc.  The article he posted was about the age difference between Republican and Democrat Congressmen. 

The article points out:

"The average age of Republican House members in the new Congress convening today is 54.9, younger than the Republicans' average age in the previous Congress, 56.5.  But the average age of House Democrats has risen, from 58 to 60.2.  That can be explained partly by the high turnover in the 2010 election.  Many younger Democrats, first elected in 2006 or 2008. fell by the wayside.  The old bulls from 65 percent-plus Democratic districts survived.  Meanwhile, many young Republican challengers won."

"...The picture is similar on the Senate side of the Capitol, where the average age of Republicans is 61.4 and the average age of Democrats in 63.1.  That's as wide a margin as in any Senate since the one produced by the election of 1982."

This results in a situation where the leaders of the Democrat Party represent a time when big government was considered a good thing.  The American electorate is no longer convinced of that idea.  The Democrats in Congress will be in agreement with what has been the Obama agenda up until this point, but how will the voters treat them in the next election?  We are seeing major changes in the political arena of our country right now.  Will the 'old guard' defeat the reforms supported by the Tea Party or will we see true change in Congress?

I am not sure who came up with the brilliant idea to replace all incandescent light bulbs with fluorescent bulbs--it was a Democrat Congress, but President Bush signed it.  The law was called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.  California has chosen to be ahead of the curve.

Yesterday's Washington Times reports:

"The cost of illuminating your home is about to go up significantly. Most Americans take for granted that when they flip a switch, darkness immediately gives way to a warm, natural light. That's no longer possible in California, where a regulation that took effect Jan. 1 only allows the sale of harsh, cold compact fluorescents above a certain wattage. Unless the new Congress takes action, the same rules will apply to the rest of the country, beginning next year."

The law in California makes it illegal to sell newly manufactured cheap bulbs that produce a pleasing, natural light of 100 watts or more.  The new bulbs the regulation requires will cost anywhere from $2 to $10.  You could buy an old-fashioned 60-watt bill for as little as 29 cents!

The article concludes:

"Turning on a dim, harsh fluorescent light demonstrates "concern" for the environment. Forcing everyone to do the same shows an even higher degree of purported enlightenment on the part of lawmakers. Consumers are forced to pay this price as a "carbon" offering to Mother Earth in the hopes that she will favor us with colder weather. We can expect much of the absurdity across the Atlantic to happen here, unless this Congress returns to Americans the freedom to choose a real light bulb."

The other problem with this change is that the Compact Fluorescent bulbs can be hazardous if they break.  They contain mercury, and there are very specific instructions for cleaning up the mess if one breaks.  The other problem will be people routinely throwing them out when they burn out--polluting landfills in ways that incandescent bulbs do not.  This is another example of the unintended consequences of a Congress that in the past few years has consistently overstepped its bounds.

The unintended consequences of the Obamacare bill keep piling up.  Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Blue Shield of California has asked for a significant rate hike in the coming year.  Some of the customers of Blue Shield of California will experience rate hikes of up to 59 per cent. 

The article reports:

"(Blue Shield spokesman Tom) Epstein said Blue Shield raised rates again Jan. 1 to pay for reforms under the national healthcare overhaul and a new state law that bars insurers from charging women more than men. (Some policyholders will pay less under the state gender law, while others will pay more.)

"A third round of hikes scheduled for March 1 comes in response to rising healthcare costs, he said. Those increases will average 6.5% and be as high as 18%.

"Some policyholders have seen their bills rise gradually over the last five months, while others will see the charges lumped together March 1."

The national healthcare reform bill that Congress passed was not well thought out and was not a good bill.  We need to repeal it and start again.

Another aspect of the bill is the 3 percent tax on the sale of homes.  Money Talks News reported on this tax in September.  This tax will go into effect in January of 2013.  It is set up so that it 'will only impact the wealthy' and the average American will not be impacted by it.  Is anyone willing to make a small wager on how long it will be before that tax will include average Americans?  The problem with taxes is that they rarely go down--they tend to increase--not decrease. 

According to Money Talks News:

"In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold.

"Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners" - if you do not fall into that category you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home."

In the interest of full disclosure, I need to say that I will not be affected by this tax as it currently stands.  My fear is that as inflation kicks in (and Congress wants more money) the tax will begin to impact average Americans.  We also need to keep in mind that in some areas of the country, an elderly couple who has been living in their house for forty years and who is middle class would be in danger of having to pay the 3 per cent tax.

The job of the government is not to redistribute wealth--the job of the government is to get out of the way so that the creativity of the American people can create jobs and help all of us prosper.

As some countries around the world consider recognition of a Palestinian State, there are some things involved in that recognition that they should keep in mind.  I think (although I am not sure) that the goal here is peace in the Middle East.  If that is true, recognizing Palestine as a country at this point may not be realistic path to that goal.

Yesterday's Jerusalem Post posted an article dealing with the current Israeli-Palestinian situation.  The article points out:

"Netanyahu bewailed what he said had become the Palestinian "three no's": No to recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, no to dropping their demand for a Palestinian refugee "right of return," and no to agreed-upon security arrangements on the ground. The prime minister was making a reference to the Arab League's Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967, and its "Three No's": "no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it." Netanyahu, who informed the MKs that White House senior adviser Dennis Ross was due back later this week, said the Palestinians had shown no willingness to compromise on either substantive or procedural issues. They have shown "no movement," he said."

I will admit to being a rather simple person, but this seems very clear to me.  Why in the world would anyone recognize a nations that says it will not recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and expect peace to follow?   How can I make peace with my neighbor if their goal is to drive me out of my house and take it over?  Does common sense exist when countries are dealing with the Middle East?

Aside from the obvious changing of the guard, there are some interesting things going on in Congress this year.  Yesterday The Hill's Blog Briefing Room posted an article about John Boehner's response to Democrat's requests not to repeal Obamacare.  The Senate's top five Democrats sent a note to Representative Boehner vowing to block a House bill repealing healthcare reform.

According to the article, this is Representative Boehner's reply:

"Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

"Thank you for reminding us - and the American people - of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with 'Big Pharma,' resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

"The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now.  You're welcome.

"- Speaker-Designate John Boehner's Press Office"

Meanwhile, the American Thinker reported yesterday that Obamacare has stopped the construction at 45 physician owned hospitals nationwide.  Huh?  The article reports:

"Kenneth Artz of the Heartland Institute explains, "Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding." Politico adds, "Friday [New Year's Eve] marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect.""

Why is a healthcare bill attempting to control the growth of hospitals? 

The article further reports:

"This little-noticed but particularly eqregious aspect of Obamacare is, by all accounts, a concession to the powerful American Hospital Association (AHA), a supporter of Obamacare, which prefers to have its member hospitals operate without competition from hospitals owned by doctors.

"Dr, Michael Russell, president of Physician Hospitals of America, which has filed suit to try to stop this selective building-ban from going into effect, says, "There are so many regulations [in Obamacare] and they are so onerous and intrusive that we believe that the section [Section 6001] was deliberately designed so no physician owned hospital could successfully comply.""

Here's another aspect of Obamacare--if it is repealed, thousands of construction workers will be able to go backk to work!  Hopefully, Congress has the backbone to do this!

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a very interesting article yesterday about the murder of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai last year.  The article links to a GQ article by Ronen Bergman about the killing.

The article points out the Dubai in its coverage of the murder failed to mention some basic parts of the events surrounding the killing:

"Until now, the authorities have established a clear, detailed timeline. By studying hundreds of hours of closed-circuit security footage, they have meticulously reconstructed the movements of the many characters involved in the unfolding drama. But when Al-Mabhouh arrives at the mall, the river of information suddenly goes dry. What did he do during the next four hours, which were to be the last of his life? Where did he go? With whom did he meet? The official report does not provide even a sketchy outline of the missing hours.

"According to Israeli intelligence sources, Al-Mabhouh met with a banker who was assisting him with various international weapons transactions, and with his regular contact from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who flew in to coordinate the delivery of two large shipments of weapons to Hamas the following month. The Dubai police had good reason to gloss over this part of the narrative, if they were indeed aware of it. Providing details of Al-Mabhouh's contacts would have been highly embarrassing to authorities eager to paint Dubai as a squeaky-clean international business center. It would also have served as a reminder that the victim of this cold-blooded Israeli execution had a fair amount of blood on his hands, raising inconvenient questions about why Al-Mabhouh was there in the first place--questions that the media largely forgot to ask in the furor that erupted after his assassination."

The GQ article is a detailed explaination of the mission.  It shows where mistakes were made and the consequences of those mistakes.  It points out a very interesting fact about Israeli secret intelligence missions:

"When it comes to false identities and false passports, the Mossad has a unique problem, one that most Western intelligence services do not face. When the CIA or the British SIS (or MI6, as it is commonly known) send an operative into the field, they can usually provide him or her with a valid U.S. or U.K. passport issued in whatever false name and identity the individual will be using. But an Israeli spy cannot use an Israeli passport, since the most important targets for Israeli espionage are in countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. For this reason, the need for foreign documentation has always been an acute one in the Mossad, which has historically resolved this problem by forging what it needed. Naturally, this is done without the authorization of the countries involved."

I don't support 'hit teams' going into foreign countries and killing people they deem as evil, but I can easily understand why Israel thought this was necessary.   Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh (aside from killing two defenseless Israeli soldiers in 1989) has been financing and planning suicide bombings in Israel and the trafficking of huge amounts of rockets and sophisticated weaponry into Gaza, which have been used to devastating effect since the start of the second intifada in 2000.  By killing Al-Mabhouh, Israel probably saved a lot of lives.  Again, I don't approve of assassinations of private citizens by foreign countries, but until the world takes terrorism seriously enough to deal with people who sell arms to terrorists, I am not sure there is an alternative.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner posted an article about the fact that the recent census showed that states with lower taxes have higher rates of population growth than states with higher taxes.  We have previously noted on this blog that when 'millionaires taxes' are put in place, millionaires leave the states where they are enacted.  The article at the Examiner shows the actual statistics on the migration to low-tax states. 

"Last Tuesday, my Examiner colleague Michael Barone did a good general breakdown of income tax rates versus population growth and found that 7 of the 9 states which have no income tax all grew higher than the national average while the 2 that didn't grew fastest in their regions."

This isn't really a surprise.  It actually goes along with the idea that people, generally speaking, would like to keep as much of the money they earn as possible.  That is not really a hard concept to grasp.  It goes along with the idea that when the government taxes an activity you get less of it and when the government gives a tax break to an activity, you get more of it. 

The article has charts and graphs showing how all the states compare in taxes and growth.  It's an amazing article.

The article concludes that there is a reason that Texas is responsible for creating half the new jobs in the country last year--low taxes.  Tort reform didn't hurt either!

One of the arguments made in the lame-duck session of Congress for the passage of the START Treaty was that we needed a way to check on what the Russians were doing and, oh yeah, don't worry about that silly little thing in the preamble about missile defense.  Well, that silly little thing has come back to haunt us.

Guy Benson at Townhall.com and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air are both reporting that the Russian Duma has begun its discussion on the START Treaty. 

Guy Benson at Townhall reports:

"The State Duma plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems' deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the US and Russia, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs says.

""During the ratification of START in the US Congress the American lawmakers noted that the link between strategic offensive armed forces and antimissile defense systems is not juridically binding for the parties. They referred to the fact that this link was fixed only in the preamble of the document. Such an approach can be regarded as the US' attempt to find an option to build up its strategic potential and the Russian lawmakers cannot agree with this," Kosachev says."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports:

"It is not surprising that there are differences in interpretation of the treaty between the Russian and the American side. Russia insisted on inserting missile defense provisions into the preamble, making it obvious that they viewed this provision as having some importance. Yet the White House has stated that it is non-binding. And to further complicate matters, the administration denied the Senate the opportunity to understand the dispute better, by refusing to share treaty negotiating documents. Now that the Senate has approved the treaty without first understanding how it would be implemented, the Russian Duma will attempt to modify the accord to impose missile defense restrictions -- as critics of the accord predicted would happen.

"The START Treaty ratification process is already a mess. And it is a mess because the Obama administration was not candid about the meaning of the agreement. If the Duma alters the accord in an attempt to impose new restrictions on America's defensive capabilities, the Obama administration will have a full-blown diplomatic incident on its hands."

Whoops.  We were suckered by the Russians and the White House.  Let's not let it happen again.

There are some real questions about the recent election in the Ivory Coast.  The current president, Laurent Gbagbo, has claimed that there was serious election fraud in the recent election. 

According to an article at Wire Update:

"Côte d'Ivoire's Constitutional Council on Friday overturned Sunday's run-off results and declares incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo as winner."  

"...Goude and Gbagbo's supporters want an international investigation to be conducted about the alleged election fraud. They said the results would validate the Ivorian Constitutional Commission's ruling that declared Gbagbo the winner."

The thing to understand here is that there were armed supporters of Gbagbo's Muslim opponent, Alassane Ouatarra, who were asked to disarm before the election, but failed to comply.  When you look closely at what is happening here, it appears that the neighboring Muslim countries are attempted to set up a Muslim state in the Ivory Coast.  Unfortunately, most of the international community is coming down on the wrong side of this issue.

In recent years, America has certified elections that were seriously flawed--Venezuela is one recent example.  The situation in the Ivory Coast is not a result of a President who refuses to give up power--it is the result of a Muslim who wants to set up a Muslim state in the country.  When you consider the slaughter of Christians in other African countries controlled by Muslims, it might be a really good idea to keep President Gbagbo in office.

Yesterday the Christian Science Monitor at its Adam Smith Institute Blog reported that European nations have begun seizing private pensions.

The article reports:

"The most striking example is Hungary, where last month the government made the citizens an offer they could not refuse. They could either remit their individual retirement savings to the state, or lose the right to the basic state pension (but still have an obligation to pay contributions for it). In this extortionate way, the government wants to gain control over $14bn of individual retirement savings."

Other countries are beginning to follow similar paths--Bulgaria was forced to back down from a plan to transfer $300m of private early retirement savings to the state pension scheme.  The trade unions protested, and finally only about 20% of the original plans were implemented.  In Poland, the plan is for the government to transfer of 1/3 of future contributions from individual retirement accounts to the state-run social security system.

The article reports what has happened in Ireland:

"In 2001, the National Pension Reserve Fund was brought into existence for the purpose of supporting pensions of the Irish people in the years 2025-2050. The scheme was also supposed to provide for the pensions of some public sector employees (mainly university staff). However, in March 2009, the Irish government earmarked €4bn from this fund for rescuing banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of €2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country."

France has decided to earmark €33bn from the national reserve pension fund FRR to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit. 

The article reaches a very valid conclusion:

"It looks like although the governments are able to enforce general participation in pension schemes, they do not seem to be the best guardians of the money accumulated there."

We need to learn from the mistakes of our European friends.

On December 30, CNS News reported that the EPA has taken the unprecedented step of directly issue greenhouse gas permits to Texas industries beginning in January because the state has openly refused to comply with new federal regulations.

According to the article:

"Texas and the EPA have disagreed for years over pollution regulation, but the hostility intensified recently with Republican Gov. Rick Perry accusing the EPA and the Obama administration of overstepping boundaries and meddling in states' rights. With a more conservative state Legislature about to convene next year, there's appetite to keep up that fight.

"The EPA, meanwhile, by flexing its muscles in Texas, may be able to send a message to other states that the days when the agency allowed contentious issues to languish unresolved have ended. Other states have had their differences with the EPA, and at least a dozen have come together in a lawsuit -- along with Texas -- challenging new greenhouse gas regulations."

I have stated before--I am NOT in favor of pollution!  However, I am not convinced that the people in Washington have a better idea of what is going on in an individual state better than the people running that state.  I am not convinced that Washington bureaucrats are acting in the best interests of Americans--I think special interest groups have taken over the beltway and need to be shown the door.

Texas is one of the few states with a booming economy right now.  The state has changed the rules on liability lawsuits and changed its tax policy to make the state more business friendly.  The approach has worked--the population of Texas grew 20.6 per cent between 2000 and 2010.  The success of the business model of the state of Texas is not a good thing for the Obama Administration--it shows that good tax policy (lower taxes) and tort reform works--that is not a message Washington wants to hear.

It will be interesting to watch this battle play out!

Unless you live in a cave, you hear snippits from the major media every day.  This short little clips involve everything from the latest celebrity divorce to the climbing price of gasoline.  I don't think anyone avoids hearing them.  The question becomes, "How much of what you hear can you believe?"

Byron York at the Washington Examiner  posted a story yesterday shining some light on one of the current sound bites.  On a recent "Meet the Press" show Valerie Jarrett stated that President Obama's biggest regret is that all of his hard work in the White House has kept him isolated from the American people.  He really hasn't had a chance to leave the White House to spend time with us.  Awwwww.  The President is trying to figure out a way that in the coming two years of his administration he can spend more time outside the nation's capital talking to us.  Wow.

Sounds great until you confuse the issue with a few facts.  As of January 1 (the date of the article in the Washington Examiner), President Obama had been in office for 712 days.  President Obama has spent 339 of those days (48%) outside of Washington.  Fifty-eight of those days were spent on vacation, and 35 of those days were spent at Camp David. 

The article also comments on the idea that President Obama needs to 'engage' the American people.  Of the 712 President Obama has been in office, there have been only 45 days that the President hasn't made a presidential public appearance or issued a statement.  I'm actually already feeling pretty 'engaged.'

There will be a lot of comments made in the coming year that will attempt to improve the President's approval ratings.  The trick is to separate the fact from the fiction.

The Nation has posted an article detailing the cost of President Obama's Hawaiian vacation.  I don't begrudge the man and his family a vacation, but they have spent $1.5 million on their holiday.  This just seems inappropriate at a time when the unemployment rate in America has hovered around 10 per cent for the past six months. 

The article reports:

"The White House would not comment on the cost of the stay. A spokesman said the president's holiday expenses are in line with those of previous presidents. But the Hawaii Reporter claimed: 'They could have chosen a less expensive and more secure place to stay such as a beachfront home on the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station - just a two-minute drive away from the Kailuana Place property where they are now.

"'The president visits the military base daily to workout, bowl with his kids or enjoy the more private beach there. 'He also could have stayed at a home 15 minutes away on the beach fronting Bellows Air Force Base as President Bill Clinton did.'"

Watching the behavior of the Obamas in the White House reminds me of watching someone who has won the lottery.  There seems to be no limit on the spending and no sensitivity to the fact that many Americans are struggling financially.  The President and his family are entitled to a vacation, but to spend $1.5 million dollars on a vacation at this time is a little tone deaf.  We elect a President to lead the country--not act as if he is competing for a part on "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous."

Best Wishes To Everyone For A Safe And Prosperous New Year!

Today's American Thinker posted their list of the Top Ten Stories The Media either missed or missed the point of.  I will try to summarize the list; it was given in no particular order.

1.  Obamacare--there were a number of parts of the story the media did not fully cover--the bending and breaking of Congressional rules in order to pass the bill, whether of not the mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance was constitutional, the total cost of the bill, and the impact of the bill on the business community.

2.  The fact that in general most Americans and most people living in Arizona supported the tougher immigration laws passed in that state.

3.  Congress failed in its duties to pass a budget this year.  They did not want to vote on a budget before the election because they did not want to be held accountable. 

4.  The internal threat of jihad--mosques preaching radicalism, honor killings, and other things that are creeping into the American culture.

5.  The 'race card' is no longer effective as a political tool--people are looking at candidates according to what they stand for--not their race or ethnicity.

6.  The JournoList scandal--it has been obvious for some time that the mainstream media all operate from the same viewpoint.  The JournoList confirmed an agenda.  The media is no longer an objective body of news that can be trusted.

7.  "Local law enforcement assists SEIU thugs -- http://video.foxnews.com/v/4207278/did-seiu-protesters-cross-the-line In May, hundreds of SEIU protesters were bused to the home of a Bank of America executive in Montgomery County, Maryland. Protestors were on this family's front porch chanting and waving signs as a scared 14-yr old was home alone."  I saw similar union activities in Massachusetts during the time I was working on a Congressional campaign.

8.  The faulty research on global warming was exposed. 

9.  The federal shutting down of drilling in the Gulf and its impact on the economy of the region.

10.  States rights are becoming an issue as the government attempts to grab more power.  That's good news.

I started this blog because I wanted to report the stories that I did not believe the major media outlets were reporting fairly or completely.  The above list is composed of just those stories.  All of us need to be aware of how our major media news coverage impacts the way we see things.  This coming year will be a year where we all need to pay attention.

Yesterday The Hill's Blog Briefing Room posted the story that Representative Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas), who had introduced a bill last summer to ban lame-duck Congressional sessions except in the case of national emergency, is planning to re-introduce that bill in the new session of Congress.  Representative Jenkins told FOX News, "I am just concerned with the amount of activity that we see happening in these lame-duck sessions, when the folks [who were not reelected] are no longer accountable to the people that they represent."

Lame-duck sessions were originally set up to provide for the amount of travel time it took new Congressmen to get to Washington after having been elected.  Originally, the term of Congress began in March to allow for travel time and a smooth transition.  Needless to say, travel time is no longer an issue--Congressmen show up early and often! 

The article points out:

"Critics of legislating during lame-duck sessions argue that lawmakers who are not re-elected don't have the same accountability that members do during normal sessions, and could and often do vote against their constituents' interests. In making their case, they cite the 20th amendment to the Constitution, which establishes the beginning and ending of the terms of elected federal offices and deals with scenarios in which there is no president-elect. It was ratified in 1933."

To me, accountability is the issue.   We have become so politicized as a country that there were people in the lame-duck session who were voting for party interests rather than the interests of the people they were supposed to represent.  Some of the things that were passed in this lame-duck session were things representatives were unwilling to vote on before the election because they did not want to be held accountable.  That goes against every concept of representative government--it is simply wrong.

I hope the Representative Jenkins is successful in getting this bill passed.  Accountability is part of what makes a representative republic work--lame-duck sessions are not part of this picture.