February 2011 Archives

Today's New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that Noble Energy has been issued the first deepwater drilling permit since the BP blowout last year.  The article noted that the permit was to resume work on a previously approved well. 

The article reports:

"Unrest in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East is fostering uncertainty in the oil markets and driving U.S. gas prices up significantly. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., reacted to the Noble permit by mentioning the specter of $4-per-gallon gas at the pumps and threatened to maintain his hold on Obama's Fish and Wildlife Service nominee Dan Ashe until 15 deepwater drilling permits are approved."

I hate to admit that I am cynical about this permit, but the above paragraph might explain why it was suddenly issued. 

The article further reports:

""This permit represents a significant milestone for us and for the offshore oil and gas industry, and is an important step towards safely developing deepwater energy supplies offshore," Bromwich said. "This permit was issued for one simple reason: the operator successfully demonstrated that it can drill its deepwater well safely and that it is capable of containing a subsea blowout if it were to occur. We expect further deepwater permits to be approved in coming weeks and months based on the same process that led to the approval of this permit."

"Most drilling in deepwater was banned by President Barack Obama's administration last May through Oct. 12. Since then, the only permits that have been approved have been for the type of technical work that wasn't prohibited by the drilling moratorium, such as water-infusion wells that are not intended to tap into oil reservoirs."

America has the oil and natural gas resources to be energy independent and to end the recession we are currently in (I know the government says the recession is over, but there are still an awful lot of people looking for jobs).  The problem has been that oil companies have not been able to obtain the permits and leases to go after the oil and natural gas.  Hopefully the recent unrest in the Middle East has caused the Obama Administration to see the need for energy independence (unfortunately, we are a carbon-based economy, so energy independence involves coal, oil, and natural gas--not wind and solar).  Wind and solar may be the energy of the future, but coal, oil, and natural gas are the energy of the present.

I usually don't try to summarize three page articles, but this one is important, so after you read this post, please follow the link to the original article.  It is worth your time.

On Saturday, Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review entitled, "The OIC and the Caliphate."  The OIC is the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 57 members (56 nations and the Palestinian authority) formed to pursue the interests of the world's Muslims. 

Mr. McCarthy quotes some of the statements by the OIC leaders:

"Muslims are taught to think of themselves as a community, a single Muslim Nation. "I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke," Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini famously said of his own country in 1980, even as he consolidated his power there, even as he made Iran the point of his revolutionary spear. "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah." Muslims were not interested in maintaining the Westphalian system of nation states. According to Khomeini, who was then regarded by East and West as Islam's most consequential voice, any country, including his own, could be sacrificed in service of the doctrinal imperative that "Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world.""

The OIC for all intents and purposes is a caliphate--a religious state comprised of many states.  A caliphate functions under Sharia law.  Today the caliphate is an ideal, historically it was an actual state:

"The caliphate is an ideal now, much like the competing ideal of a freedom said to be the yearning of every human heart. Unlike the latter ideal, the caliphate had, for centuries, a concrete existence. It was formally dissolved in 1924, a signal step in Kemal Atatürk's purge of Islam from public life in Turkey. Atatürk, too, thought he had an early line on the End of History. One wonders what he'd make of Erdogan's rising Islamist Turkey."

Again Mr. McCarthy reminds us of the history of Islam:

""Individual Muslims," Churchill wrote at the turn of the century, demonstrated many "splendid qualities." That, however, did not mean Islam was splendid or that its principles were consonant with Western principles. To the contrary, Churchill opined, "No stronger retrograde force exists in the world." Boxed in by rigid sharia, Islam could only "paralyse the social development of those who follow it." Reason had evolved the West, but Islam had revoked reason's license in the tenth century, closing its "gates of ijtihad" -- its short-lived tradition of introspection. Yet, sharia's rigidity did not render Islam "moribund." Churchill recognized the power of the caliphate, of the hegemonic vision. "Mohammedanism," he concluded, remained "a militant and proselytising faith.""

Islam is not interesting in co-existing with other religious or political systems:

"...The Cairo Declaration boasts that Allah has made the Islamic ummah "the best community . . . which gave humanity a universal and well-balanced civilization." It is the "historical role" of the ummah to "civilize" the rest of the world -- not the other way around."

Those who believe that the west can make peace with Islam are sadly mistaken.  Please read the entire article for a better understanding of the historic conflict we now find ourselves engaged in.

CBN News reported today on a group called the Southern Poverty Law Center, founded in 1971.  The group's website features a 'hate map' listing hate groups in the United States.  There are groups in the United States that teach hate and prejudice, and it is good idea to know who they are and where they are.  However, there is a problem--who determines exactly what is hate speech?  That seems to be the question.

According to the CBN article, the Southern Poverty Law Center has now included Christian and pro-family organizations as hate groups. 

The article at CBN reports:

"A recent issue of the SPLC's magazine, "Intelligence Report," claims that homosexuals are the most targeted minority in America. 

"The magazine lists 13 organizations as haters because of their stance on homosexuality.  The Christian organization, Family Research Council, is among those added to the hate groups list this year.

"Editor Mark Potok, who helped compile the hate list, told CBN News that just because a group believes homosexuality is unbiblical does not earn it a spot on the list.   

"Potok says if the organization engages in name-calling and spouts arguments that the Southern Poverty Law Center believes have been proven untrue, then it's a hate group.

""While I am not absolutely trying to draw a comparison between say, the Family Research Council and a neo-Nazi organization, it does meet our criteria," Potok said. "The FRC does engage, certainly in our view, in the propagation of known falsehoods in an effort to defame gay people."" 

The Family Research Council (FRC) was added to the list because of their reporting on a study that linked homosexuality to pedophilia.  The FRC has stated that it welcomes a debate on the study, while the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) has started its own campaign by trying to convince CNN not to give air time to guests from what they call, "the anti-gay industry."

Hate speech is something that should be strongly discouraged.  However, the problem occurs in determining exactly what is hate speech.  What is the difference between hate speech and speech that is simply politically incorrect?

Today, the American Thinker posted an article about the economy of Brazil.  Why in the world should we care about the economy in Brazil?  Well, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cited that economy as a good example to follow--3-6% economic growth recently and a place on the world stage with the World Cup Soccer games and the 2016 Olympic Games.  Sounds good, but that's not the whole picture.

The article at American Thinker reports:

"Brazil's economy actually is growing at a superheated pace, this much is true.  It is the B in the BRIC )Brazil, Russia, India, and China), which together seems to have a controlling destiny in the world economy.  After generations of misrule and flirtations with Communism, Brazil seems to have its legs beneath her.  The currency is finally stable (with interest rates, however, from 14% and upward) and taxes now just onerous rather than impossible.  There exists a growing middle class and considerable upward mobility that never really existed before.  The problem is that Brazil still cannot shake its pinko roots.

"Politicians in Brazil promise everything to everybody.  Its astronomically popular recent president Lula was the original community organizer.  What kind of promises? Every Brazilian with a "legitimate" job is guaranteed 30 days of vacation after the first year.  In addition, their Social Security system makes the US government look miserly.  And once you are hired in a legitimate job, you have to try very hard to lose your job -- public or private sector."   

"Before extolling the virtues of beat-down market socialism, maybe our politicians should do their homework first, that is unless they like what they see-a people subservient to their will.  Good luck, America, with the endless lines like in Brazil and the mushrooming number of incompetent and corrupt politicians and public servants.  Get ready, also, for an army of those who think they know better about your life." 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about the numbers behind the protests by the Teachers' Union in Wisconsin. 

The article reports:

"Some have called for Walker to reconsider his push to remove pensions and benefits from collective bargaining with public-employee unions as a compromise, but Gary Gross recalls a Patrick McIlheran column from December that explains exactly why Wisconsin needs to push for PEU reform now.   The MSJ columnist wrote about the big stake that the Wisconsin Education Association has in forcing individual school districts to negotiate benefits -- because they can demand that their own WEA Trust have a monopoly on health insurance:"

The numbers tell the story.  WEA Trust plans average $1,665 a month for family, the state insurance programs cost an average of $1,466. 

The article reports:

"Milton was paying $48,301 more in premiums for every month that it couldn't switch from WEA Trust to a pair of plans from Madison-based Dean Health and Janesville-based MercyCare that it said were comparable."

"...And it saved a bundle for a district saddled with "bleak local economic conditions," as its arbitration case put it. It is losing students and, thus, state aid. The area is losing population. The district needed to control premiums, and the arbitrator agreed.

The question is why it had to go to arbitration at all. The answer is that in Wisconsin, school districts can't change health carriers - even if they keep benefits the same - without negotiating. And teachers unions have been very partial to keeping WEA Trust."

Essentially, the unions had tied the hands of the people running the state who were trying to limit the cost of running the state. 

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

"The refusal to collect union dues probably fuels the union opposition most, as it will strangle their political operation in Wisconsin.  But for the WEA in particular, the loss of their near-monopoly on health insurance in the public sector will do the next-highest level of damage to union finances.  Just remember that when people tell you that the cause for which they're fighting isn't about money, it usually is."

Governor Walker has been accused of union-busting.  There is nothing wrong with unions, but when unions get out of control and are bankrupting the state, they need to be reined in.

We don't know how the revolt in Egypt will eventually play out.  We do know that many of the people on the streets were expressing a sincere desire to be free from the rule of a dictatorship and to be free to thrive economically.  One of the aspects of the revolt in Egypt was the use of social networking and the internet to share information and to get information to the outside world.

On Thursday, February 17, the Walpole Times (Walpole, Massachusetts) published a story about an organization called the Tor Project which offers anonymity online.  The free software designed by the Tor Project hides the physical location of the internet user and circumvents government surveillance and censorship.  The Executive Director of the Tor Project is Andrew Lewman.

According to the article:

"Tor software was downloaded 36 million times last year worldwide, Lewman said, with about 500.000 on and off users of the privacy portal each day.  Before protests began in Egypt, however, people in the country didn't utilize the software as much as other activists around the world.

"At the start of January, only about 200 to 300 sessions were originating from Egypt per day, he said.  By the time the Egyptian government basically shut down the country's Internet and blocked cell phones late last month, those numbers increased tenfold."

The highest number of users of Tor are in China, Germany and the United States. 

Tor is used by people who want to protect their privacy and by law enforcement agencies to hide their identity while investigating Internet crime.

The potential of Tor to allow a more free flow of information in countries where accessing certain websites can be hazardous to your health is wonderful.  The internet can be an amazing weapon in the fight against tyrants.  There are no guarantees that pro-western democracies will emerge out of the turmoil in the Middle East, but the Tor Project software may make it more difficult for dictators to stay in power indefinitely.

On Friday the Daily Caller posted a story highlighting a stimulus-funded anti-obesity program that has been going on under the auspices of a program under the $650 million Recovery Act called Communities Putting Prevention to Work (CPPW).  The program has now given grants to thirty-one localities to fight obesity.  California has received $55.1 million to "reduce sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and promote healthy eating" and "implement physical education policies in schools."  Washington State received $25.5 million to fight obesity--that money went to the Seattle and King County Department of Public Health.  Some of the other recipients of money--Philadelphia, Chicago, Pima County in Arizona, San Antonio and Austin in Texas, and Boston.  Some of these cities rank as the fittest cities in America, but they received money to fight obesity.

Meanwhile, Pepsi Beverages Company stopped production at its Baltimore, Maryland, plant, partly as the result of a new two-cent beverage tax in Baltimore. 

Just as a side note, West Virginia and Arkansas both have a soda tax.  Those states have two of the highest obesity rates in the country.  A tax on soda does not always result in a slimmer population.

Obesity is a health problem in America, but as usual, the government has intruded too far into our lives using our tax money.  Good nutrition and health habits need to be taught in our schools.  Healthy eating needs to be encouraged, but at the end of the day, what we eat should be our own personal choice.  It really is not the job of the government to tell Americans what to eat.  The government has more important things to do.

The Sunday Times of Australia posted an article this week about the tempered glassware that will be introduced in the pubs and clubs in Western Australia.  Britain made a similar move last year (see rightwinggranny.com article of February 6, 2010). 

Western Australian Racing and Gaming Minister Terry Waldron and the Australian Hotels Association have been working to introduce the safety glass--identical in look, feel, and weight to the standard glass, but it shatters on impact rather than producing shards.

The move to the safety glass is supposed to cut down on 'glass attacks' in clubs and pubs in Western Australia.  A safety glass cannot be used as a weapon because it shatters on impact.

Why am I mentioning this story in connection with the Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution?  Australia instituted a program of buying back guns from its population in 1997.  Obviously, this was done to cut down on crime.  Now they are changing the type of glass used in pubs to avoid glass attacks.  Maybe the problem isn't the weapon--it's the person.  United States crime statistics show that murder and robbery rates are lower in states that allow for concealed carrying of weapons.  Grandma is less likely to be mugged if the muggers suspect she may be packing heat.  It's simple logic.

The next time someone tells you that they want to prevent American citizens from owning guns, you might ask them if they think Americans should be allowed to own glasses.

This story is based on two sources--a press release from the Justice Department yesterday, and a story at CBN.com today.

Some highlights from the Justice Department Press Release:

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, 20, a citizen of Saudi Arabia and resident of Lubbock, Texas, was arrested late yesterday by FBI agents in Texas on a federal charge of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction in connection with his alleged purchase of chemicals and equipment necessary to make an improvised explosive device (IED) and his research of potential U.S. targets.

...Aldawsari is expected to make his initial appearance in federal court in Lubbock at 9:00 a.m. on Friday morning.  Aldawsari, who was lawfully admitted into the United States in 2008 on a student visa and is enrolled at South Plains College near Lubbock, faces a maximum sentence of life in prison and a $250,000 fine if convicted of attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction.

...In another e-mail titled "NICE TARGETS 01," Aldawsari allegedly sent himself the names of 12 reservoir dams in Colorado and California.   In another e-mail to himself, titled "NICE TARGETS," he listed two categories of targets: hydroelectric dams and nuclear power plants.   On Feb. 6, 2011, the affidavit alleges, Aldawsari sent himself an e-mail titled "Tyrant's House," in which he listed the Dallas address for former President George W. Bush.   The affidavit also alleges that Aldawsari conducted research that could indicate his consideration of the use of infant dolls to conceal explosives and possible targeting of a nightclub with an explosive concealed in a backpack.

There are a few things in this press release worth noting:  the chemicals and materials needed to build an improvised explosive device (IED) are readily available, this man was in the country legally on a student visa, and this man felt secure enough about not being watched or monitored that he was sending himself emails detailing his plans.  Mr. Aldawsari is believed to be a 'lone wolf' terrorist, which means that there was no group to infiltrate and no member of the group to make a mistake that led to exposure.  There is the most difficult type of terrorist to find and thus, one of the most dangerous types.

The article at CBN points out:

"Federal officials were tipped off about the suspect after he tried to purchase a large amount of phenol -- a chemical used to make high explosives."

He was discovered because someone noticed his purchases of a a large amount of phenol, a chemical used to make high explosives.  Thank God someone was alert. 

When I read this story, all I could think of was the line from JAWS, "You're going to need a bigger boat."

The U. K. Daily Mail reported today that 167 stranded U. S. citizens have left Tripoli this morning on the Maria Dolores.  There are 167 Americans on the ship and 118 people of other nationalities.  The ship is expected to reach port in Malta at about 3 o'clock EST.  The Americans have been on the boat since Wednesday.

The article explains that the ship was too small to handle the heavy weather in the Mediterranean Sea and had to wait for calmer seas.  Evidently, the Greeks had chartered a 204-meter boat and were able to evacuate their citizens earlier.  The Maria Dolores is a 68 meter boat.

The article also has a chart showing the nationalities of non-Libyans currently living in the country. 

The article states that Gadhafi is using foreign mercenaries to back up his regular forces in fighting the anti-Gadhafi forces.  Evidently, Gadhafi has no problem shooting or killing his own citizens.  That makes it very difficult to have a successful revolution.

Certainly Gadhafi is not a friend of the United States, however, I sincerely doubt that any regime coming in if his regime fails will be friendlier.

The anti-Gadhafi forces are very angry at the fact that none of the major nations of the world have taken a strong stand in favor of democracy.  That alone is an indication that the relationship between Libya and the democracies of the world may not improve after the revolution is over.

CNS News reported yesterday that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has issued a report entitled, "Estimated Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on Employment and Economic Output from October Through December 2010."

The CBO reported that the Stimulus Act cost a total of $821 billion, rather than the $787 billion originally estimated.  The CBO report estimated that in the last quarter of 2010, between 1.3 million and 3.5 million people were employed due to the Stimulus Act.  In the third quarter of 2010, the number was somewhere between 1.4 million and 3.6 million.  If you do the math, that makes the cost of each job between $228,055 (for the 3.6 million number) and $586,428 (for the 1.4 million number).  Where can I go to get one of those jobs?  Somehow I think the private sector can produce jobs much more efficiently if only the government would leave it alone.

The article points out:

"In February 2009, when President Obama signed the stimulus law the national unemployment rate was 8.2 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In January 2011, the national unemployment rate was 9.0 percent."

There is no way to know what the unemployment rate would be at the present time if the stimulus had not been passed.  We do know, however, that much of the stimulus money went to public sector workers to insure that union workers would not be laid off.  Obviously this does nothing to solve a long-term unemployment problem.  If the stimulus money had come in the form of a tax cut, letting people keep more of their own money, we might now have the lower unemployment rate the stimulus was supposed to create. 

Tonight I was privileged to be at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, listening to Mark Steyn giving a speech entitled, "Relighting the Lamps of Liberty:  Standing Up For Freedom in a Darkening World." 

Mark Steyn is the author of the book America Alone:  The End of the World As We Know It.  He was introduced by Michael Graham of Boston Radio Station WTKK (96.9).

Mr. Steyn's opening remarks dealt with the fact that security concerns are being used as an excuse for government authorities to control public discourse.  He pointed out that Ann Coulter had been prevented from speaking at a university in Canada due to 'security concerns' and that he had been prevented from speaking at a public forum in Canada due to 'security concerns.'  He praised the Rabbi of the Ahavath Torah Congregation for refusing to bow to the pressure of 'security concerns.'

Mr. Steyn described the current events in the Middle East as the 'Palestiniazation' (I suspect he coined the word--it's a great word) of the Middle East.   He pointed out that the events in the Middle East are the result of what former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice referred to in 2005 as 'the pursuit of stability at the expense of democracy.'  Mr. Steyn predicted that the new rulers in the countries where the dictators are being ousted will not be friendly to the West--the new leaders will be friendlier to the Muslim Brotherhood and to Iran.  He also pointed out that Anti-Semitism is already prevalent in the protests.  Mr. Steyn reminded us that in 1923, Egypt's first full year as a sovereign state, the Egyptian Minister of Finance was Jewish.  Unfortunately, that is not possible today.  As the Middle East unravels, America, supposedly the world's superpower, is a spectator.  This is not about America.  It is about people in the Middle East who want freedom being used to usher in governments that will not give them that freedom.

Mr. Steyn cited four ways to relight the lamps of liberty:

1.      Stop out-of-control spending now and roll back government regulations and intrusion into our lives.

2.      Put an end to one-way multiculturalism.  It is amazing that a pastor in Florida who threatened to burn a Koran drew a visit from the FBI and a call from President Obama.  President Obama has never spoken out about either honor killings or female genital mutilation.  Why was burning the Koran worth a comment and not the other items?  We need a President willing to stand up and defend Western Civilization.

3.      We need to regain our individual liberty.  Our government's response to Islamic intimidation has been to find ways to limit the free speech of people who are telling the truth about Islam.  Islam wants to use hate speech rules to make it a crime to criticize Islam.  Public discourse can be controlled and limited by setting up the state as the sole arbiter of acceptable discourse.  The group who applies the most muscle to the government will be the group who wins the concessions.

4.      We need to spread the risk of speaking out against Islam.  It is time for an "I am Spartacus" moment.  If an artist who drew a cartoon or the newspaper who published a cartoon is threatened, that cartoon should be on the front page of every newspaper in the country.  Until we are willing to share the risk of speaking out, we will lose our freedom incrementally. 

 During the question and answer period after the speech, in response to a question about what we are teaching our children in our schools, Mr. Steyn quoted George Orwell: 

Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.

It was an inspiring speech.  There were between four and five hundred people there.  It is encouraging to know that there are that many people in Massachusetts willing to come out on a cold winter night because they love their country and its freedom.

BigGovernment.com reported yesterday on some tax problems recently encountered by the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC).  Landmark Legal Foundation was founded in 1976.  Its current President is Mark Levin.  The article deals with some of what they have uncovered in regard to the spending and tax returns of the WEAC.

The article reports:

"In April, the Landmark Legal Foundation asked federal officials to investigate its claim that WEAC failed to report or pay taxes on $430,000 in contributions to the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee between 2000 and 2002 in apparent violation of federal law.

"The Wisconsin Education Association Council has voluntarily made $171,091 in payments to the Internal Revenue Service after a review of past federal tax returns, the state's largest teachers union said Wednesday."

The WEA Trust was created by the Wisconsin Education Association Council to provide insurance, and retirement and investment services to Wisconsin public school employees and their families.  The bill proposed by Governor Walker of Wisconsin would require teachers to join the state employees' health insurance program, rather than have the state pay the WEA Trust to insure the teachers.  If the teachers are forced to join the state's health insurance program, that will take a major source of funding away from the union.  Obviously some of that funding has not been used for healthcare.

Wisconsin is the site of a battle between a union that has taken money from the taxpayers to pay for healthcare for teachers, then spent some of that money on political contributions to make sure the people that set up the system were elected.  That sounds like something that should be stopped, whether you are a union member or not.

This story is based on two sources, the U.K. Telegraph yesterday and CBN News today.

I  have no idea who said, "When American has a weak President, the world is a more dangerous place," but it is obviously true.  Yesterday four Americans were killed by Somali pirates.  Their ship was hijacked about 300 miles off the Somali coast.

The small yacht was manned by Jean and Scott Adam, the yacht's owners, and two of their friends, Phyllis Macay and Bob Riggle. 

According the the CBN News article:

"The boat belonged to California couple Scott and Jean Adam, who'd been living on the ship and sailing the seas since 2002. According to their website, their mission was to travel to ports around the world distributing Bibles and "seeking fertile ground for the Word.""

The pirates hijacked the yacht and U. S. Naval Warships followed the pirates and the hostages at a distance.  After gun shots were heard from the yacht's crew quarters, armed commandos sped from a US Navy vessel less than 600 yards away.  Unfortunately, the hostages had already been shot. 

On December 25, 2010, a website called Neptune Maritime Security published a list of the ships currently held by Somali pirates.  Please follow the link to see the list.

According to information at goafrica.about.com:

"According to a recent BBC report, Somali pirates seized a record 1,181 hostages in 2010, and were paid many millions of dollars in ransom."

Because Somalia does not have a stable government or an economy that supports its people, piracy is a very attractice profession.  Just as Afghanistan has tribal leaders, Somalia has overlords who supervise the pirates and share the booty.  Because of the general lawlessness of the society, a young man may be given a choice of becoming a pirate or being shot by one of the people supervising the pirates.  When I think about this, I am really grateful that I do not run America--I might be having one of my 'nuclear parking lot' days.

Piracy off the African coast cannot be allowed to continue.  At some point the nations of the world who believe in law and order are going to have to combine their naval resources and wipe out the pirates.  Unfortunately, a lot of innocent hostages will die when that happens, but until we are willing to do that, the piracy will continue.

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that Solyndra, Inc. received a $535 million loan guarantee from stimulus money to finance the first phase of building the company's new facility for manufacturing photovoltaic solar panels.  President Obama and Vice-President Biden praised the company for its plan to create 1,000 jobs.  Unfortunately the jobs never materailized. 

On November 3rd, the company announced that it was postponing expanding its manufacturing facility and no longer planned to hire the 1,000 workers.  In addition, the company planned to shut down one of its older plants and lay off 135 workers.  Since the company was founded in 2005, it has never shown a profit (according to the Securities and Exchange Commission).  In June 2010 the Wall Street Journal reported that Solyndra, Inc., was a major contributor to the Obama presidential campaign.  I am sure that is simply a coincidence.

"According to a Feb. 17 letter signed by Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton, Michigan Republican, and Oversight Subcommittee Chairman Cliff Stearns, Florida Republican, to Energy Secretary Steven Chu, the Fremont, Calif.-based solar panel manufacturer should never have received a $535 million loan guarantee from the stimulus.*"

*Correction: The sentence originally stated the money was squandered.

Hopefully, someone is Congress will take a serious look at how stimulus money was spent.  It is becoming very obvious that political connectiveness was the requirement--it had nothing to do with creating jobs.

CBS News is reporting today that President Obama has instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, the law which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage. 

The article quotes the following statement from Attorney General Eric Holder:

""After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny," he said. "The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President's determination.""

I am not a lawyer, but does the President have the power to declare a law unconstitutional? 

The article reports more of the Attorney General's statement:

""The Department has a longstanding practice of defending the constitutionality of duly-enacted statutes if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense," he said. "At the same time, the Department in the past has declined to defend statutes despite the availability of professionally responsible arguments, in part because - as here - the Department does not consider every such argument to be a 'reasonable' one.""

If this is legal, I am surprised.  I was under the impression that it was the responsibility of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of law--not the President.

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reported today that Democrat Congressman Michael Capuano (from Massachusetts, of course) told a group of people protesting in Boston in support of union workers in Wisconsin to "get a little bloody." 

The article quotes Representative Capuano:

""I'm proud to be here with people who understand that it's more than just sending an email to get you going," Capuano said, according to the Dorchester Reporter. "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.""

I know enough history to know that when unions were originally formed, they were desperately needed.   We didn't have labor laws, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), or the many other federal agencies that control working conditions, and other aspects of the workplace.  Today, because workers are generally protected by laws, unions have lost a lot of their power.  What we are seeing in Wisconsin and Indiana is the unions attempting to take back that power before anyone figures out what the unions are costing the average American family because of their wage and benefit demands in the public sector.  The average state and federal worker is paid 150% of what their counterparts in the private sector make, and their benefits are such that private sector workers can only dream of receiving that kind of benefit package. 

The battle in Wisconsin and Indiana is about preventing those states (and others) from going broke.  States (unlike the federal government) do not have the right to print money, and many states have laws requiring that they balance the budget every year.  Unless we want to see a bunch of the states run out of money and ask for bailouts from the federal government (which I hope will not be granted), the government employee unions need to rethink their demands--not call for bloodshed.

Best sign from the Tea Party Rally in Boston, Massachusetts, yesterday!

Yesterday at BigGovernment.com, Tom Fitton reported that after a five-year battle, Judicial Watch has been given the documents it requested regarding Hillarycare.  The article points out that President George W. Bush was generally reluctant to release records from the Clinton Administration--he publicly expressed a desire to move beyond the scandals of hte Clinton Administration.  This policy probably prevented the Clinton smear machine from attacking him even more than they did.

The article cites information from three of the documents included in the 54,527 pages.  The documents cited deal with issues that also apply to Obamacare.  It is interesting that these documents were not released until Obamacare was passed by Congress.

Please follow the link above the read the contents of the three memoranda cited.  I don't know if any of the press will run this story, but it is noteworthy that it took five years to obtain these documents.  The American people are entitled to know in a timely manner what goes on in their government in matters that do not endanger national security--five years is not a timely manner.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday stating that despite the bill the House Republicans passed to defund Obamacare, the mandatory funding mechanisms of the bill were not touched.

Mr. Morrissey explains:

"The problem is that House rules prevent statutory changes through budget bills.  Since ObamaCare has already been signed into law, King's amendment would have to change the law to reverse the mandatory spending.  The rule prevents members from slipping changes in statutes into must-pass budget bills, as well as protect entitlement programs like ObamaCare.  King knew about the restriction but offered the amendment on the floor in order to serve notice of the funding mechanisms remaining for ObamaCare.  Unless the Rules Committee wanted to set a new precedent -- one that might haunt the GOP when they return to the minority -- House leadership had little choice in the matter."

The article further reports:

"But that may change in the next big showdown with Barack Obama and the Democrats in the Senate.  The House has to consider a debt-ceiling hike, and one of the demands they may make is to strike those mandatory-spending mechanisms."

Stay tuned.  This is not over yet.

Yesterday, Adam Housley at Fox News filed a report about the cooperation between Hezbollah and the Mexican Drug Cartels.  The tunnels on the border of America and Mexico and becoming more sophisticated and looking very much like the tunnels going into the Gaza Strip.  The question does not seem to be whether or not Hezbollah terrorists are being smuggled into America, but how many. 

The article points out:

"This comes as Mexican authorities busted a senior Hezbollah operative who employed Mexicans nationals with family ties to Lebanon to set up the network, designed to target Israel and the West, according to multiple reports. The man's name is Jameel Nasr and he was arrested after a Mexican surveillance operation revealed that he traveled frequently to Lebanon to receive information and instructions from Hezbollah commanders and he also spent several months in Venezuela working with the terror group and Hugo Chavez's people. American security contacts say the Mexican operation was impressive and they are seeing some increased pressure on the cartels from Mexican authorities and thus...their friends."

This is another reason we need to enforce the borders and find a way to quickly locate the drug tunnels.  Declaring areas of Arizona off limits to Americans is not the answer!  (see Fox News article of June 2010).

On Saturday, Michael Ledeen posted an article at PajamasMedia.com about the political unrest in the Middle East and North and South America. 

Mr. Ledeen notes that it is difficult (other than in Iran) to separate the freedom fighters from those who want to set up a Middle Eastern caliphate.

Mr. Ledeen points out:

"The vast insurrection is aimed at sitting rulers, but not all the insurrectionaries are fighting for freedom.  Indeed, many of them are prepared for martyrdom if they can advance the cause of even more terrible tyrannies, wrapped in the glory of a new caliphate.  The demonstrations in Bahrain and Jordan, like the virtual civil war in Yemen, are sponsored by the intelligence arms of the Iranian Islamic Republic, and supported by killers from Hezbollah, the Revolutionary Guards Corps, and their proxies.  And we have already seen the Egyptian Islamists come front and center to lay claim to the country.  Andy McCarthy is appropriately alarmed."

We have no way of knowing how all of this will turn out--either in Iran, Venezuela or Wisconsin.  We can take heart in the fact that in Iran Mr. Ledeen has confirmed that some of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard have asked for guidelines suggesting restraint when dealing with protestors.  The 1979 Iranian revolution succeeded in part because the military and police did not shoot the protestors.  We may reach that point again. 

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.  Mr. Ledeen is considered a scholar on the Middle East, and the article is very insightful.

This seems to be the year of the protest--from the Middle East to Wisconsin.  Now, there is a new protest planned.

The U.K. Mail reported yesterday that Anjem Choudary, a Muslim cleric, will hold a demonstration outside the White House on March 3.  The purpose of the demonstration is to call on Muslims to establish the Sharia law across America.

Mr. Choudary has called America "the biggest criminals in the world today." 

There are two other British extremists, Abu Izzadeen and Sayful Islam, who have been asked to speak at the demonstration.

The article points out that there may be a problem with the men entering America to hold the protest:

"However, whether the three will be able to enter the U.S., especially Izzadeen, remains to be seen. Even a tourist visa requires applicants to answer questions on whether they have been involved in acts of terrorism or plan to commit crimes in the U.S."

Mr. Choudary appeared on the Sean Hannity show earlier this month.  Please follow the link above the view the video.

The article quotes Mr. Choudary:

'We are going to address ­corruption in the Senate, corrupt foreign ­policy, the mayhem around the ­Muslim world, the drug and ­alcohol culture, ­promiscuity and the pandemic of crime in America.

'It is only right the call is made in the heart of Western ­civilisation in front of the biggest pharaoh that ­exists today, which is Barack Obama.

So much for the President's policy of outreach to Muslims.

Yesterday Power Line posted a summary of the Budget Repair Bill Governor Walker of Wisconsin in proposing.

According to the article, the bill will:

- Ask government workers to pay half the cost of their pensions - still less than private employees pay for their pensions

- Ask government workers to pay 12% of their own health insurance premiums - the national average for the private sector is over 20%

- End collective bargaining for government unions for pensions and benefits. Allow bargaining only for raises that are less than inflation.

- End forced union dues, collected by the state. Union dues would become voluntary.

- Union members get to vote yearly on whether to keep their union.

In the eyes of the unions there are three major problems with this law--none of which have to do with workers benefits.  The end of forced union dues might put a serious crimp in the money the unions collect that gets used for political purposes.  Voting yearly to keep the union might force the unions to be more concerned about their members and less concerned about Democrat politics.  The end of collective bargaining would take a lot of power away from the unions--they do not want to give up their power.

None of these changes are earthshaking to the teachers--they are earthshaking to the unions.

Today the American Spectator posted the following at its "Prowler" site:

"The White House has been watching the Wisconsin state employee labor fight with a degree of alarm, says a White House aide: "I think all of us recognize what this could mean for us in the re-election fight," says the aide. "Without well financed labor, we're screwed.""

That statement tells us everything we need to know about what is happening in Wisconsin.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted this statement by Lindsey Graham on Meet The Press yesterday:

"Despite the nonsense on union placards in Madison, the budget-repair bill wasn't some diktat from an entrenched governor; Scott Walker won the election less than four months ago with this specific plan on the agenda.  Not only did Republicans win the top spot by putting this proposal in front of voters, the GOP won control of both chambers of the legislature as well.  Elections have consequences, which everyone but the unions seem to acknowledge."

Mob rule should not overturn the results of an election.

Today's Daily Caller posted an article about events at the United Nations last week regarding Israeli settlements.  The United States had suggested a resolution rebuking Israeli settlements as illegitimate.  This was done as a compromise instead of the resolution calling the settlements illegal and an obstacle to peace (which the United States vetoed). 

The article at the Daily Caller cites three major problems with our actions at the United Nations.

1.   The President's willingness to take sides against Israel at the very anti-Israel United Nations is a major shift in American foreign policy.  The United Nations has been taken over by the Arab League.  We need to withdraw our membership and ask the UN to relocate to an Arab country.  It is not good public relations for the world to see America turn her back on her friends.

2.  This is another example of the Obama Administration's policy of kissing up to our enemies at the expense of our friends.  Recently we gave away British nuclear secrets in order to secure to START Treaty.  (see rightwinggranny.com February 5). 

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

"At the same time, despite showing a willingness to side with the Israel's enemies to attack Israel at the U.N. and despite delivering a harsh diatribe against Israel at the Security Council meeting, the U.S. still didn't win any points with Arab regimes or the Arab street because it was ultimately seen as publicly vetoing the resolution."

Not only did we mistreat our friends--we gained nothing in doing it--that's not diplomacy!

3.  At the time when President Obama was playing games at the United Nations, the Middle East was in turmoil.  Where was his focus? 

The foreign policy errors in this administration in the past two years are frightening and damaging to our country.  I am fearful that in the next two years President Obama will continue to do serious damage to American interests across the globe.

Today's New Orleans Times Picayune reported that Republican state Rep. Jonathan Perry has narrowly defeated Democrat Nathan Granger in a special election held to fill a vacant State Senate seat.  If the results of the election are certified, this will be the first time Republicans have had control of the State Senate since Reconstruction.  The results of the election can be contested up until February 28, and must be certified to be official. 

Before the election, there were 19 Republicans in the Senate and 19 Democrats.  When the results of the election are certified, Louisiana will have both a Republican governor and a Republican Senate.

As the Mildde East goes through some serious growing and realignment pains, I think it is a good time to get serious about energy independence.  Evidently, not everyone agrees.

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about a movie called "Gasland."  The movie is directed by Josh Fox and is designed to make sure no one is endangered by America's development of its natural gas resources. 

The author of the article describes the movie as "nine parts fantasy with a few sprinkles of propaganda on top."  The author then describes the measures energy companies take to ensure that their drilling procedures are safe for people and for the environment.  Please read the article--you will be impressed by what is being done by the energy companies to protect the environment.

America is economically carbon-based.  As our allies in the Middle East may not be our allies in the future, it would be a good idea to develop fully our own carbon-based energy resources.  Energy independence is a necessary part of prosperity in our current world economy.

Yesterday the Weekly Standlard blog reported the comments a Wisconsin political insider made on a Milwaukee radio station.

He stated that the Senators and their staffs had been asked to clear the Capitol because the administration could not guarantee their safety.  They were informed that the new protesters who would be coming in "aren't afraid to be arrested." 

Thursday, the legislators returned to their offices and were advised to lock the doors. 

The article reports:

"Mobs roamed the halls, banging on the glass of the doors, pounding on the walls. No one could move in the halls or enter or leave the building. The glass of the Supreme Court's entrance was broken. Legislators were genuinely afraid. Our elected representatives were afraid. In our Capitol."

This is not protest--this is an attempt at mob rule.  This behavior is unacceptable regardless of who is doing it.  During the 2010 congressional campaign, I saw unon thugs use the same kind of tactics on the campaign trail.  I think it is time those members of the unions who feel that this sort of behavior is acceptable be held accountable for thier behavior.  This sort of thuggery is not part of constructive political debate.  

Here is a collection of recent articles on various events relating to the Middle East.

Yesterday the Jerusalem Post reported that the United States had vetoed a United Nations resolution calling for a halt to all settlement building in Israel. 

The article reported:

"Republican and Democratic House leaders took a rare bipartisan stand of unity praising the administration for its veto.

""Moving forward, we must continue to make it clear that peace cannot be imposed; it must be negotiated directly between Israelis and Palestinians," said House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer in a statement released after the vote. "It is high time that the Palestinians return to the negotiating table, rather than skirt the peace process by bringing biased, unproductive resolutions to the United Nations."

"Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also lauded the decision, but took issue with the Obama administration for considering backing a presidential statement that would have reprimanded Israel over settlements and not clearly staging in the days leading up to the vote that it would veto the resolution."

However, the vote did not necessarily agree with all the voices in the Obama Administration. 

According to ABC News, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called the Israeli settlements illegitimate shortly before the United States vetoed the United Nations resolution. 

Friday's Chicago Sun Times posted the speech Susan Rice, the U. S. Representative to the U. N. made to explain the veto.  Ms. Rice stated:

"Our opposition to the resolution before this Council today should therefore not be misunderstood to mean we support settlement activity. On the contrary, we reject in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity. For more than four decades, Israeli settlement activity in territories occupied in 1967 has undermined Israel's security and corroded hopes for peace and stability in the region. Continued settlement activity violates Israel's international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace."

How come no one ever mentions the rockets that rain down on Israeli civilians on a regular basis as a threat to peace?

Meanwhile, Niall Ferguson, a Harvard Professor and Newsweek columnist, was interviewed by Morning Joe and had some rather harsh words for President Obama's foreign pollicy.  He stated very clearly that he felt the Obama Administration had totally missed the boat on the Egyptian protests.

Professor Ferguson also stated:

"With his guns-blazing anti-Obama assessment, Ferguson concluded "the President regards making touchy-feely speeches as a substitute for having a strategy" and if he does have any strategy, it only is "I'm not George W. Bush - love me." By the end, Scarborough seemed somewhat convinced that Ferguson did reflect Obama's foreign policy, however Brzezinski was still optimistic about the situation in Egypt despite Ferguson's warning that "most revolutions lead not to happy clappy democracies.""

Please follow the above link to hear the entire interview.  It has some rather amazing comments from a Harvard professor.

Last Tuesday, a site called EscapeTyranny.com posted actual figures on the current inflation rate. 

The article states:

"We keep hearing that inflation remains relatively low.

"But a look at this Commodity Price Index chart indicates that the real inflation rate was over 20 percent for the past 12 months, more than 30 percent for food -- even higher for commodities we really need to live."

The article shows a chart of the inflation rate of major commodities in the past month and in the past year.  For example, the Commodity Food Price Index is up 30 percent; the Commodity Fuel Price Index is up 20 percent; cotton is up 132 percent (look for an increase in clothing this spring); and oil is up 21 percent.  Please follow the link above to see the entire chart.  It is surprising.

One of the reasons for the climbing inflation is the falling value of the United States dollar.  The United States dollar is the benchmark currency for the world, but there is currently talk of changing that.  Be prepared.  If the change away from the dollar is made, prices of everything in America will rapidly increase.  The solution to this problem is to bring sanity into government spending.  If that does not happen, America will cease to be the economic force in the world that it currently is.

The Hill reported today that the Republicans in the House of Representatives have voted to cut more than $60 billion from federal spending for the remainder of the year.

According to the article:

"At 4:40 a.m., lawmakers voted 235-189 to send the so-called continuing resolution to the Senate. Not one Democrat voted for the bill that would cut at least $61 billion, from 2010 levels in spending for federal programs and agencies."

On Thursday, Hot Air reported that the Republicans in the House had voted to defund President Obama's czars. 

The article at Hot Air reports:

"The amendment, offered by Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.), specifically targets Obama's "climate czar" by blocking funding for the assistant to the president for energy and climate change, the position's official title. The amendment would block funding for the 'czars' through the end of the fiscal year, when the spending bill would run out. The underlying bill also includes a provision to block funding for the position."

"...The amendment would also prohibit funding for the director of the White House Office of Health Reform; the State Department's special envoy for climate change; the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the Council on Environmental Quality; the senior adviser to the secretary of the treasury assigned to the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry and senior counselor for manufacturing policy; the White House director of urban affairs; the special envoy to oversee the closure of Guantanamo Bay; the special master for TARP executive compensation at the Department of the Treasury; and the associate general counsel and chief diversity officer at the Federal Communications Commission."

This is a wonderful idea that will probably get squashed very quickly in the Senate. 

USA Today reported yesterday that the House of Representatives has voted to block the funding of Obamacare. 

The article states:

"Specifically, the House voted to prohibit any funds be used by the Internal Revenue Service to carry out the law's mandate that Americans buy health insurance. The individual mandate, one of the law's key tenets, has been struck down by federal courts."

Since the courts are not yet in agreement as to whether or not Obamacare is constitutional, it seems like a good idea not to fund it.  This is another wonderful idea that will probably get squashed very quickly in the Senate.

Politico reported yesterday that the House of Representatives has voted to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood. 

The article reports:

"(Representative Mike) Pense took his fight against Planned Parenthood to the next level after the release of a series of videos by the group Live Action--videos that they say show Planned Parenthood employees advising actors posing as pimps on information on how to get abortions, STD testing and birth control for their underage prostitutes."

This is another wonderful idea that will probably get squashed very quickly in the Senate. 

So what is the point of all this effort?  It's actually very simple.  Some of the cuts that passed the House of Representatives may actually become law.  If the effort had not been made, the spending would continue to spiral out of control.  There is also the election aspect.  What do the American people want to see in a budget?  Do they care?  Does the Tea Party make a difference in the level of caring? 

The Republicans are really rotten at public relations and making their case.  This time the health of the nation's economy depends of their being able to explain the need for budget cuts.  Let's hope they are up to the task.  If the Republicans successfully make a case for budget cuts, one of two things will happen--either the budget cuts will get through the Senate and past the President or those opposing the budget cuts will be voted out of office in 2012.  It is going to be an interesting fight.

Power Line today posted pictures of a pro-Democracy rally that took place at the Wisconsin Capitol this afternoon.  Please follow the link to see the pictures.  My favorite is a picture of a child crying with the caption, "What, I have to pay for some of my own insurance and retirement?"

The article at Power Line also comments on the activities by some doctors at the rallies protesting the changes in teachers' benefits:

The DEBKA File posted a report today on some of the consequences of the end of the Mubarak regime in Egypt and what that will mean for Israel.  There is no good news here.

For starters, two Iranians warships are going to pass through the Suez Canal.  One, the Iranian cruiser Kharg, is reported by DEBKA to be carrying long-range missiles for Hizballah which it plans to unload at a Syrian port or Beirut harbor. 

The article reports:

"US State Department spokesman P.J Crowley said he was "highly skeptical" of the Syrian claim that the two ships' visit was for training. "If the ships move through the canal, we will evaluate what they actually do. It's not really about the ships. It's about what the ships are carrying, what's their destination, what's the cargo on board, where's it going, to whom and for what benefit," Crowley told a news conference.

"He was responding to questions in the wake of debkafile's disclosure that the Karg was carrying missiles for Hizballah and indicating that the US and all other UN members were authorized by UN sanctions against Iran to board and search Iranian ships suspected of carrying illegal weapons."

The article reports that now the Suez Canal can be used to bring weapons to Syria and Lebanon.  This will break Israel's naval blockade on the Gaza Strip and bring Hamas the weapons that were too big to smuggle through the tunnels between Egypt and Gaza.

The article lists Iran's plans for the Suez Canal:

1. To cut off, even partially, the US military and naval Persian Gulf forces from their main route for supplies and reinforcements;
2. To establish an Iranian military-naval grip on the Suez Canal, through which 40 percent of the world's maritime freights pass every day:
3. To bring an Iranian military presence close enough to menace the Egyptian heartland of Cairo and the Nile Delta and squeeze it into joining the radical Iranian-Syrian-Iraqi-Turkish alliance;
4. To thread a contiguous Iranian military-naval line from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea through the Suez Canal and the Gaza Strip and up to the ports of Lebanon, where Hizballah has already seized power and toppled the pro-West government.
5. To eventually sever the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt, annex it to the Gaza Strip and establish a large Hamas-ruled Palestinian state athwart the Mediterranean, the Gulf of Aqaba and the Red Sea.
By comparison, a Fatah-led Palestinian state on the West Bank within the American orbit be politically and strategically inferior.
6. To tighten the naval and military siege on Israel.

Please read the entire article to understand the consequences of the fall of Mubarak and the fallout of the way President Obama handled the situation. 

During the protests in Egypt, there were a number of western reporters who were beaten or mistreated in various ways.  Some of their stories were reported, some were not.  One of the reporters, 60 Minutes correspondent Lara Logan, was sexually assaulted during the protests.

Michael Graham posted a story at the Boston Herald yesterday about how CBS handled the story of that assault.  CBS did not run the story until five days after the assault.  In the meantime, they praised President Obama for his handling of the Egyptian crisis. 

Mr. Graham comments:

""The sexual assault of a woman in the middle of a public square is a story  . . .  particularly because the crowd in Tahrir Square was almost invariably characterized as friendly and out for nothing but democracy," Cohen wrote.

"Watching the same complicit media we all saw, Cohen notes most journalists covered the mobs "as if they were reporting from Times Square on New Year's Eve, stopping only at putting on a party hat."

"Even CBS's own statement said Logan was "covering the jubilation" and was attacked "amidst the celebration."

"Having 200 "good guys" gang assault a female reporter while screaming "Jew! Jew!" doesn't fit the narrative. Is that why CBS sat on the story?"

There was definitely a side of the protests that the media was reluctant to show.  Does anyone remember that after the war in Iraq, CNN admitted that it had not reported a lot of the human rights abuses going on in Iraq before the war because they were afraid of being asked to leave the country?  Does anyone remember 'Baghdad Bob?' 

Speaking of the Islamic culture, Mr. Graham further points out:

"I would point her (Slate.com's Rachel Larimore) to the 2008 broadcast on the Al-Aribiya network of a female (!) lawyer arguing that it's OK for Muslim men to sexually assault Israeli women, because the Jews have "raped the land." Or this week's story of Hena, the 14-year-old Bangladeshi girl raped by a family member, then sentenced to 100 lashes by Muslim authorities for having sex out of wedlock. After 80 lashes, Hena died."

Ms. Larimore pointed out at Slate.com that she wondered if the incident with Ms. Logan was an isolated incident or the result of men being raised in a culture that treats women as second-class citizens.

The bottom line here is that all cultures are not created equally and all revolutions are not equal.  The protests in the Middle East may not bring freedom and equality to the people who are asking to be free.  We can't assume that everyone in the world has the same concept of freedom that western cultures embrace.

An easy guide to keeping political news in perspective:

 1. The Wall Street Journal is read by the people who run the country.

 2. The Washington Post is read by people who think they run the country.

 3. The New York Times is read by people who think they should run the country, and who are very good at crossword puzzles.

 4. USA Today is read by people who think they ought to run the country but don't really understand The New York Times. They do, however, like their statistics shown in pie charts.

 5. The Los Angeles Times is read by people who wouldn't mind running the country, if they could find the time -- and if they didn't have to leave Southern California to do it.

 6. The Boston Globe is read by people whose parents used to run the country.

 7. The New York Daily News is read by people who aren't too sure who's running the country and don't really care as long as they can get a seat on the train.

 8. The New York Post is read by people who don't care who is running the country as long as they do something really scandalous, preferably while intoxicated.

 9. The Miami Herald is read by people who are running another country, but need the baseball scores.

 10. The San Francisco Chronicle is read by people who aren't sure if there is a country or that anyone is running it; but if so, they oppose all that they stand for. There are occasional exceptions if the leaders are handicapped, minority, feminist, atheist dwarfs who also happen to be illegal aliens from any other country or galaxy, provided of course, that they are not Republicans.

 11. The National Enquirer is read by people trapped in line at the grocery store.

 12. The Seattle Times is read by people who have recently caught a fish and need something to wrap it in.

As the unrest continues in the Middle East, the United States prepares to rebuke its only reliable ally in that region--the one stable democracy that supports freedom.

On Wednesday, ForeignPolicy.com reported that the United States was planning to support a United Nations Security Council statement rebuking Israel for 'continued settlement activity.'  The purpose of the U. S. supporting this resolution is that it avoids the U. S. having to veto a stronger resolution put forth by the Palestinians calling the settlements illegal.  I'm not impressed.

The article reports:

"But the Palestinians rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesday of Arab representatives and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution on Friday, according to officials familar with the issue. The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospect that the Obama adminstration will cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council. 

"Still, the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of the current impasse, even if it requires breaking with Israel and joining others in the council in sending a strong message to its key ally to stop its construction of new settlements. U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two Security Council diplomats confirmed the proposal."

The fact that the United States is being forced into a position where it finds it necessary to cast its first veto since the United Nations was founded in 1945 is an indication of the direction the United Nations has taken in recent years.

The Wall Street Journal also posted an article about the coming vote on Israeli settlements. 

 The Wall Street Journal points out:

"Many Arab diplomats argue the uprisings that toppled the governments of Egypt and Tunisia in recent weeks heightened the need for a quick resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Many Middle East analysts believe a new government in Cairo could be less committed to Egypt's peace agreement with Israel."

The uprisings in the Middle East have nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.  The uprisings have been stirred up mainly in countries that lean pro-western in order to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to take over these countries.  At some point in the future, we will see Iran's fingerprints on these uprisings.

Israel is taking defensive measures in case its treaty with Egypt is ended by a new government in Egypt.  Israel will tighten border security with Egypt if Egypt fails to enforce the border.

It is definitely time to stop funding the United Nations and ask it to leave New York City.

There is a lot of discussion going on right now about cutting the budget, the dangers of deficits, and the projected deficits as we go into the future.  There are a few things I would like to point out about some of the numbers currently being thrown around.  One of the things to remember as the discussion goes forward is that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) calculates its numbers based on the information it is given--it does not evaluate the information in any way.  We need to keep this in mind as we hear various numbers.

On January 8th, the Wall Street Journal posted an article about the interest rate on our debt.  The numbers given to the CBO assume an interest rate over the next decade of 3 percent. 

According to the article:

"Low interest rates, however, won't last forever -- assuming the U.S. economy doesn't succumb to long-term, Japanese-style stagnation. The CBO estimates that interest rates on 3-month bills and 10-year notes will reach 5.0% and 5.9%, respectively, by 2020. That, together with a rapidly rising debt load, would cause annual net interest payments to more than double by 2020 -- to $778 billion, or a record 3.4% of GDP. That's closer to what the government spends every year on national defense."

No one who follows financial matters believes that the interest rate on the 10-year note will remain at 3 percent over the next ten years. 

On February 7, Rich Lowry posted an article at the New York Post about what it would actually take to cut federal spending and bring down the deficit.  Paul Ryan is suggesting that we reduce the level of federal spending to the levels of 2008.  President Obama has asked for a budget this year that would increase spending by 12 percent (that budget was never enacted--spending is currently being done through continuing resolutions),  Paul Ryan is suggesting that this budget be reduced by 9 percent.

The article in the New York Post reports:

"Returning to 2008 can be "draconian" only if the last two years were extravagant. According to Congressional Budget Office numbers, the Department of Education saw an 11 percent increase in its budget from 2008 to 2010, and a 181 percent increase when the stimulus is included; the Department of Energy saw a 10 percent and a 171 percent increase, respectively; the EPA a 36 percent and a 130 percent increase. Washington has been on a binge of Charlie Sheen-like proportions."

 

Bringing the budget back to 2008 is a beginning.  It is time to take serious action to rein in government spending.

Newsmax.com reported today that "MSNBC host Lawrence O'Donnell Wednesday accused Rep. Jason Chaffetz of being a "tax criminal" because he sleeps in his office several days a week, and does not declare the Longworth House Office Building his residence on his IRS returns."

This is about the dumbest thing I have read in a long time, only it gets worse. 

The article reports:

"Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group, last week asked the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether congressmen who sleep in their offices are violating tax law by failing to report lodging as a taxable fringe benefit.

"Congressmen from both parties who sleep in their offices have also been accused of costing taxpayers money, by using extra electricity and water."

The current salary (2011) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year.  That sounds like an awful lot of money until you begin to consider the cost of maintaining two households (consider Washington rental costs) and traveling back and forth between Washington and your district on a regular basis.

Mr. O'Donnell stated that in his opinion Representative Chaffetz was illegally living in a federal building.  He also stated that Representative Chaffetz should declare what he saves by sleeping in his office as income.  Didn't he already declare it as income when he was paid it as salary?

As federal budget deficits spiral out of control, why in the world is the mainstream media worrying about whether or not a congressman sleeps in his office?

Today the Daily Caller reported that Governor Rick Scott is canceling the federally proposed high-speed rail line between Orlando and Tampa.  The Governor stated that even with the federal subsidies, the rail line would cost Florida $3 billion, which the state could not afford.  The Governor also pointed out that there was no guarantee that anyone would use the rail line if it were to be completed, meaning that the rail line would continue to cost the state money.

Congratulations to Governor Scott for being willing to take a stand against runaway government spending. 

Walter Williams recently posted an article at Creators.com about the causes of prosperity in a nation.  Mr. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Mr. Williams points out that when people from countries where a majority of the population is living in poverty come to the United States, many of these people are very successful in America.  What makes the difference?

Why do Egyptians do well in America, but not well in Egypt?  Why is this also true for citizens of many other countries with the exception of Taiwan and Hong Kong? 

Mr. Williams points out:

Much of Egypt's economic problems are directly related to government interference and control that have resulted in weak institutions vital to prosperity. Hernando De Soto, president of Peru's Institute for Liberty and Democracy (www.ild.org.pe), laid out much of Egypt's problem in his Wall Street Journal article (Feb. 3, 2011), "Egypt's Economic Apartheid." More than 90 percent of Egyptians hold their property without legal title.

De Soto says, "Without clear legal title to their assets and real estate, in short, these entrepreneurs own what I have called 'dead capital' -- property that cannot be leveraged as collateral for loans, to obtain investment capital, or as security for long-term contractual deals. And so the majority of these Egyptian enterprises remain small and relatively poor."

There are some things we can learn from these observations.  When people have more economic freedom and less government regulations, they are free to create wealth.  Mr. Williams concludes the article by stating that liberty is a necessary ingredient for prosperity.  This is something we need to keep in mind as government regulations spiral out of control.  Unless the government is reined in quickly and its current direction reversed, America will join the ranks of third world countries with impoverished populations.

The Pigford affair has not been widely reported in the press.  It may get a little more publicity now that Shirley Sherrod has sued Andrew Breitbart, Larry O'Connor and "John Doe" for defamation.  It was reported in Power Line yesterday that Ms. Sherrod has retained the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis to bring her case against Andrew Breitbart.  The lawsuit will be venued in Washington, D.C. 

The article reports:

"Finally, I was surprised to see that Sherrod claims damages for her firing by the Department of Agriculture. This opens up a broad scope of discovery for the defendants. They will be entitled to investigate the factors that went into Sherrod's firing by, for example, taking the deposition of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and subpoenaing all emails, voicemail recordings and other documents in the possession of the Department of Agriculture and the White House that relate to her termination. I cannot imagine that the Obama administration would welcome this scrutiny, and one wonders whether the administration will pressure Sherrod to drop her case."

The Agriculture Department might not want scutiny right now because of the Pigford affair.  Pigford is the case dealing with settlements made to black farmers who were discriminated against by the Agriculture Department in the past.  However, there are a few problems with the program.

In December of last year, BigGovernment.com reported:

I started to research Pigford and the more we looked into it, the more I realized that this was not a story that could be researched and told quickly. In fact, it was still unfolding. And even now, it still is.

This coming Wednesday, President Obama is slated to sign the Pigford II settlement.

But that will not be the end of the story. The American people deserve a full investigation and accounting.

Today, we're releasing a report called "The Pigford Shakedown: How the Black Farmers' Cause Was Hijacked by Politicians, Trial Lawyers & Community Organizers -- Leaving Us With a Billion Dollar Tab."

What have we discovered about Pigford so far?

Treasure troves of information from Lexis and Google. USDA whistleblowers. A former FBI agent who was on the verge of indictments. One of the originally discriminated-against black farmers with the goods. All these people paint a very clear picture of widespread fraud, and can testify to a complex web of bad players, including politicians, trial attorneys and community organizers.

I stumbled on the Pigford story in my defense of the Tea Party, so it's a sweet irony that the Pigford story is exactly the kind of mess that makes the Tea Party so necessary. Politicians and trial attorneys bonded together to rip off the taxpayer, and even those farmers that were discriminated against were royally screwed.

Let me be clear, our investigation convincingly leads us to believe the USDA practiced discrimination against black farmers. Those wrongs must be rectified. But Pigford is wrought with a grotesque amount of fraud, while the truly aggrieved were mostly left high and dry.

The Pigford tale is about government run amok. It is also an indictment of the American media that is so blinded by ideology that it missed the big story yet again because taking out a political enemy was far more expedient. And furthermore it is why the American people need the Tea Party and new media as a checks and balances on corrupt politicians and their corrupt journalist counterparts.

Last week at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference), Andrew Breitbart introduced his evidence of fraud in the Pigford settlement.   More information can be found at the website of the Ventura County Tea Party.  If Ms. Sherrod's lawsuit goes forward, the discovery process is going to be very revealing.

The U. S. Report posted an article today stating that Michael Yon will be returning to Afghanistan in February. 

The article at U. S. Report states:

"Yon said he's returned to Afghanistan to about six provinces since McChrystal's crew "mysteriously" ended his embed. Yon confronted criticism for calling things as he saw them in Afghanistan during his last embed. He singled out both Brig. Gen. Daniel Menard (Canada) and Gen. Stanley McChrystal.  Canada replaced Menard in June, 2010, and McChrystal resigned that month as well."

Michael Yon is one of my favorite sources of information on what is happening in Afghanistan.  He reports honestly and depends on his own research rather than news releases he is given.

The article concludes:

"Asked whether his readers will be glad to see him return, Yon said many of them are happy about it. Yon has more than 42,000 supporters on his Facebook page. "Gen. [David] Petraeus has personally welcomed me, so I think it's time to get back," he added. "I respect Gen. Petraeus immensely for his wisdom and his honesty."

"Yon seems to be positive about a good outcome in Afghanistan. "With Gen. Petraeus," he said, "we have a solid chance at some form of success. How that success will look is like trying to guess next month's weather.""

I am looking forward to his reports when he returns to Afghanistan.

Heritage.org posted an analysis of President Obama's budget yesterday. 

The article at Heritage.org reports:

"Under the President's budget, the deficit in 2011 will hit a new record of $1.645 trillion, and the national debt held by the public over the next 10 years would nearly double, rising by nearly $7.2 trillion.  This measure of debt refers to debt held by the public net of financial assets."

The article lists the changes in tax policy listed in the budget proposed by President Obama (note that the scoring of these proposals is very creative):

• He proposes to raise the top tax rate on capital gains and dividends to 20 percent from 15 percent and lists this as a tax cut that reduces revenues by $124 billion over 10 years.
• He proposes to extend the Bush tax cuts for low- and middle-income families and correctly includes this extension in the revenue baseline. But then, breaking with past practice, he leaves the tax relief for upper-income individuals and small businesses out of the baseline and thus conveniently has no reporting of the resulting tax hike.
• He proposes to prevent the Alternative Minimum Tax from rising in 2013, and then in classic Washington style proposes $321 billion in new tax hikes to offset the cost of not raising taxes.

Debt. Under the President's budget, despite the proposed tax hikes, publicly held debt (net of financial assets) rises from $9.5 trillion in the current year to $16.7 trillion by 2021.

The recommendations of the Deficit Reduction Commission were totally ignored.  Although I did not totally agree with the Commission's conclusions, their suggestions would have made a good place for the debate to begin.  Unfortunately, the President's budget does not even engage in the debate--he ignores the current discussion and continues down the road that brought us to the budget crisis we are currently experiencing.

The article concludes:

"The American system of government is intended to compel opposing forces to struggle, for in the struggle is refinement, improvement, and a crude but effective system of checks and balances. However, this system generally cannot function to solve difficult problems when the President thoroughly abdicates his leadership role. With this budget, the President has done just that, and now Congress must find its own way to regain control of the nation's finances."

This is a time in the history of our country when we desperately need leadership.  Hopefully Congress can provide it at this time.

Before all of us go into panic mode because the Republican budget cuts programs that aid the poor, we need to remember something--these programs grew exponentially during the past five years.  Most of the cuts suggested will simply bring us back to 2008 levels. 

Power Line posted this chart yesterday:

This shows the rate of growth of federal spending in the past thirteen years through the next nine years.  Does your household income chart look like this?  Has your income grown at this rate?  What shape would your household finances be in if your spending curve over this period followed this chart?

More analysis to follow...

Yesterday the U.K. Daily Mail reported that a United States customs officer had stated that weapons of mass destruction have been found inside the United States.

The article reported:

"In the interview screened by San Diego's 10News, Al Hallor, assistant San Diego port director, said 'weapons of mass effect' had been found, although he did not specify exactly where or what they were.

"Reporter Mitch Blacher asked Mr Hallor: 'Do you ever find things that are dangerous like a chemical agent or a weaponised device?'

"'At the airport, seaport, at our port of entry we have not this past fiscal year, but our partner agencies have found those things,' the customs official replied."

I guess the good news is that whatever the weapons were, they were found by authorities before anyone had a chance to use them.

Please follow the above link to the article.  It provides some interesting insight into what the American government is attempting to do to keep us safe without creating panic.

Today's Washington Post posted a story about the Obama Administration's suggested plan for a national high-speed rail system.  The program will spend $53 billion over six years.  Even if you could build a high-speed rail system that would make money (which is not likely), this is not the time to be spending money that is not absolutely necessary to spend. 

The article reminds us of the lessons of Amtrak:

"Passenger rail service inspires wishful thinking. In 1970, when Congress created Amtrak to preserve intercity passenger trains, the idea was that the system would become profitable and self-sustaining after an initial infusion of federal money. This never happened. Amtrak has swallowed $35 billion in subsidies, and they're increasing by more than $1 billion annually."

The article points out that in order to make money, a high speed rail line would have to charge high fares.  If the rail charged low fares, the amount of money received from the government would need to increase.  There is no way this makes sense.

The article concludes:

"Governing ought to be about making wise choices. What's disheartening about the Obama administration's embrace of high-speed rail is that it ignores history, evidence and logic. The case against it is overwhelming. The case in favor rests on fashionable platitudes. High-speed rail is not an "investment in the future"; it's mostly a waste of money. Good government can't solve all our problems, but it can at least not make them worse."

Now is not the time to build a high-speed rail system.

This is the link to the Rockets Into Roses website.  This is an amazing concept that is totally new to me.

None of us can imagine what it is to live in fear of neighborhood rocket attacks that happen on a regular basis.  The town of Sderot in Israel has built a bomb shelter in the form of a tunnel in its children's playground so that the children can run into it when the rocket attacks start.  Again, I can't imagine what it would be like to raise a family in a place where rocket attacks are a normal occurrence. 

Yaron Bob, in the town of Ashkelon, Israel, takes the spent Kassam rockets and uses them to create beautiful metal roses.  A portion of the profit from the sale of each rose will be donated to Operation Lifeshield (to build bomb shelters in Ashkelon).

This is what the website says about the roses:

"The sculpture's base is a map of Israel with the rose growing out of the border with Gaza. The stem is mounted on a base in the shape of Israel, with each rose "growing" from the region where most of the have rockets landed.

"Although the rose, stem and base are made of Kassam remains, there is no sign the flower comes from rocket metal.

"The larger more detailed roses can take significantly longer to create, especially the bouquets.

"The premium and ultimate rose have a rounder shape flower. They also have drooping greenery below the flower. The petals are finer, thinner and more elegant than the standard and long-stemmed rose. There is significantly more work, craftsmanship and attention to detail involved."

It is unfortunate that the world chooses to look the other way while these rockets fall on innocent Israeli civilians every day. 

On January 4, 1919, His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal ibn-Hussein, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, signed an agreement to abandon all claims of his father to (Western) Palestine if he secured Iraq and Eastern Palestine as Arab territories.  Later that year, 75 percent of the land promised to Israel was given to the Hashemites (that land was known as Transjordan).  The tribe of Ibn Saud and the Wahabi Muslims had driven the Hashemite Tribe out of Mecca and Medina, where they had been custodians of the two cities for centuries, and the British gave the Hashemites Transjordan (carved out of the land the British had promised Israel).

My point in the above history lesson is that if anyone has a right to be angry about the distribution of land in the Middle East, it is the Jews--not the Arabs.  Meanwhile, until the Arabs agree to accept the existence of the State of Israel, we will not have peace in the region.

On Friday, Scott Johnson posted an article at Power Line about the recent Congressional testimony of James R. Clapper.  Mr. Clapper replaced Dennis Blair as the Director of National Intelligence. 

The article reports on some of the process that put Mr. Clapper in his position:

"(Representative Pete) Hoekstra was the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee and a serious man. Politico reported that Hoekstra had related the existence of "bipartisan opposition" to Clapper's nomination, and complained that Clapper failed to brief Congress on "an extraordinarily sensitive program."

"Politico's report also suggested that several more prominent candidates for the position declined it. They apparently prefer not to play second banana to the CIA in the bureaucratic turf wars that the position entails. The CIA was happy with Clapper. Politico pointed out that CIA Director Leon Panetta, who clashed with Blair, praised Claper's nomination, calling Clapper "a highly qualified intelligence professional" who "[t]he men and women of the CIA look forward to working closely with ... to strengthen America's national security.""

Well, the events of last week called into question the abilitiess of both Mr. Clapper and Mr. Panetta. 

These two events were reported in the article at Power Line:

"Yesterday Panetta announced that Hosni Mubarak would likely be leaving office later in the day. By the end of the day, Mubarak was still there. Our Egyptian intelligence is obviously not all that it might be. What compelled Panetta to open his trap and prove it?

"And yesterday Clapper told a House Intelligence Committee hearing that the Egyptian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- which seeks to render Egypt an Islamic state ruled by sharia law -- is "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam.""

Wow.  The boy scouts have taken over the Muslim Brotherhood.  I don't think so. 

The article reports:

"The current Supreme Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Muhammad Badi', gave a sermon in September 2010 stating that Muslims today "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." In short, the Muslim Brotherhood remains committed to supporting militant activities in order to advance its political aims. From looking at the biographies of its most prominent graduates, one can immediately understand the organization's long-term commitment to jihadism."

I hope America finds its Winston Churchill soon.  Our government does not seem to see the growing threat.

Last week the Center for Security Policy posted an interview with Douglas Murray, director of the Centre for Social Cohesion in the UK.  The interview is posted at YouTube. 

David Reaboi, who did the interview, comments in the article:

"I asked him (Douglas Murray) about the current revolutions in the Arab world- from Tunisia to Lebanon to Egypt- and what it portends. We discussed the reaction to the anti-regime protests in Egypt by both Western governments and certain conservative commentators who, unfamiliar with the Muslim Brotherhood or its ideology, have taken to cheering on the dissolution of one of America's regional allies."

It is a very thoughtful interview and needs to be listened to carefully.

Yesterday the Huffington Post posted a story about some of the federal budget cuts proposed by the Republicans.  The story complained about the cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Americorps.  I am still trying to figure out why the government funds the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the first place.  Most of my grandchildren have "Tickle Me Elmo" Dolls.  Doesn't the sale of licensed products raise money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?  If a television or radio show is worth airing, won't it be able to find sponsors?

The article states:

""They probably think that no one will notice these cuts in the midst of so many others. But the millions of listeners and viewers who rely on public broadcasting for Sesame Street, All Things Considered, and independent journalism will notice," said MoveOn.org in an urgent E-mail just sent out. "We need to tell Republicans that cutting off funding was unacceptable last time they were in charge, and it's unacceptable now," said MoveOn."

Why is MoveOn.org so concerned about funding for public broadcasting? 

The aricle quotes a New York Times report:

"It blocks the spending of about $2 billion in unused economic stimulus money and seeks to prevent the Internal Revenue Service from enforcing the new health care law. The measure also cuts financing directly from the office of the president."

The economic stimulus fund was not meant to be a slush fund to be used for political purposes.  Unfortunately, that is what it has become.  It needs to be stopped before any more political cronyism takes place.

I support the idea of a $61 billion savings in the budget.  Our government is spending too much and is currently out of control. 

The following chart is from the Heritage.org website.  It shows how much the rate of growth of spending has increased in the past five years.

To freeze spending at this point is to lock the barn after the horse has run away.  Hopefully the Republican budget cuts will go through.  If they don't, we can expect higher taxes, a struggling economy and unemployment rates above 9 per cent.  We need the budget cuts.

Last Sunday, Israel Today posted an article about the revolution that has just occurred in Egypt.  It tells a story that I have not heard anywhere else.

Here are a few paragraphs from the article:

When the demonstrations first began in Cairo on January 25, they were led by a large group of students with a list of specific demands. Having himself clearly learned the lesson of the shah's overthrow, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak subsequently agreed to most of those demands, most importantly the demand that this be his last term in office and that he not establish a dictatorial dynasty with his son taking over next.

A Christian source in Cairo (whose name is being withheld for his own safety) says the uprising should have died down then and there.

"As we followed the unfolding of events including the announced change in government and president Mubarak's speech, we wondered why the international news media is focusing only on the thousands in Tahrir Square who are escalating their demands and refusing dialogue," said the source.

According to this man, something changed in the uprising after the first few days, after Mubarak had already agreed to most of the reforms demanded by the original protestors.

"What is happening now has nothing to do with this original protest. What is happening right now is a conspiracy to topple Mubarak from outside the country," he said. That change coincided with the more visible participation in the uprising by the Muslim Brotherhood, a radical Islamic group with ties to extremists across the region.

But this Christian source suggested the situation is far more grave, and more methodical than just a handful of Brotherhood provocateurs entering the crowds.

"Only a few people (hundreds?) are still there from the original protesters," he noted. "They have been slowly replaced by other highly organized groups that all carry the same model of cell phones and have the same blankets.

The west (as usual) has been snookered by people who understand how to play the western media and who have a serious long-term objective.  We have been sold the story that this is about democracy in Egypt.  It is not.  It is about establishing an Islamic, Sharia state in Egypt.  This is no longer a movement by the Egyptians.  The revolt was hijacked early in the process. 

Israel has an understanding of what is happening because their security is at stake.  The article reports:

Israeli officials are furious at the way the US and Europe are handling the situation.

"I think the Americans still don't realize the extent of the catastrophe into which they have pushed the Middle East," Labor Party leader and former Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer told Army Radio.

Ben-Eliezer slammed the Obama White House's inability to learn from the past:

"We learn from history. We remember what was said when Carter proposed that the Shah of Iran give up nicely and allow Khomeini to take his place. In Gaza, too, when the Americans came in, they supervised the democratic elections [via which Hamas came into power]. If there are elections in Egypt the way the Americans want, I will be surprised if the Muslim Brotherhood does not win. This will be a new Middle East - radical, Islamic and extremist."

Likud lawmaker Ayoub Kara told visiting Republican presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee that "it needs to be understood that if the Egyptian government will fall, the Muslim Brotherhood will take its place." Kara said that Obama should also be learning from the mistakes in Iraq, where an American-style democracy has led to a "saturation of terror."

A leading columnist for Israel's largest daily newspaper, Yediot Ahronot, was even harsher, blasting Obama "selling Mubarak for a pot of lentils," and "not understanding the Middle East."

"Our conclusion in Israel needs to be that the man sitting in the White House is liable to 'sell' us over night," concluded the columnist. "The thought that the US might not stand by our side in the day of need causes chills. God help us."

God help all of us.

Bloomberg.com is reporting today that General Motors and Chrysler, both of which recieved large amounts of taxpayer money to continue operations, may award some managers bonuses of as much as 50 percent of their salary, said four people familiar with the plans.

Normally, I don't think it is anyone's business how much money someone earns or what their salary or bonuses are; however, when it's my money, I tend to pay attention.

The article reports:

"GM plans to pay bonuses to most managers equal to 15 percent to 20 percent of their annual salary and as high as 50 percent to less than 1 percent of its 26,000 U.S. salaried employees, said one of the people, who asked not to be named revealing internal plans. Bonuses for Chrysler's 10,755 salaried workers will average about $10,000, with a small group getting as much as half of their salary, one of the people said.

"...The payouts come as GM, Chrysler and Ford Motor Co. prepare for contract talks this year with the United Auto Workers, which is seeking a share of the industry's growing prosperity. Ford, the only U.S. automaker to avoid bankruptcy in 2009, is expected to pay bonuses equal to 10 percent or more of base pay to some salaried staff, said a person familiar with the plan."

The battle at Chrysler and General Motors is between the unions and the companies.  The unions were given favorable treatment in the settlement with Chrysler (breaking existing bankruptcy laws) and the unions received favorable treatment when General Motors was funded by the government. 

General Motors will be paying its union members bonuses of about 5 percent of their annual pay as part of their profit sharing plan.  Chrysler union workers will receive about 1.3 percent.  Ford will pay about 8.3 percent.

The article reports:

"UAW President Bob King has said he aims to recover some of the $7,000 to $30,000 in concessions each worker gave up since 2005 to help the U.S. automakers survive. The union surrendered raises, bonuses and cost-of-living adjustments. The UAW also agreed to a two-tier wage system in which new hires earn about $14 an hour, half the amount paid to senior production workers.

""All the sacrifices that our members made to turn these companies around were part of the process that's really led to this amazing turnaround," King said in an interview last month. "We want our membership to share in a very meaningful way in the upside of these companies.""

What about all the sacrifices the taxpayers made?

This story is from the Weekly Standard Blog.  Another promise of Obamacare has been broken--the bill will not create jobs--it will cause unemployment.  This fact was made clear during Congressional testimony yesterday by Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf.  The testimony went as follows:

Chairman [Paul] Ryan: "[I]t's been argued...that the new health care law will create jobs and increase labor force participation. But if I recall from your analysis, it was quite the opposite. Is that not the case?"

Director [Douglas] Elmendorf : "Yes."...

[...]

Rep. [John] Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we'll -- and Dr. Elmendorf -- and we'll continue this conversation right now. First on health care, before I get to -- before I get to broader issues, you just mentioned that you believe -- or that in your estimate, that the health care law would reduce the labor used in the economy by about 1/2 of 1 percent, given that, I believe you say, there's 160 million full-time people working in '20-'21.  That means that, in your estimation, the health care law would reduce employment by 800,000 in '20-'21. Is that correct? 

Director Elmendorf: Yes. The way I would put it is that we do estimate, as you said, that...employment will be about 160 million by the end of the decade.  Half a percent of that is 800,000.

How many broken promises will it take before this awful law is repealed? 

The Associated Press via Yahoo News is reporting that there is dancing in the streets in Egypt as President Mubarak has stepped down and control of the government has been given to the military.  Recently named Vice President Suleiman also seems to have lost his new found position.

The article quotes Vice President Suleiman's statement:

"In these grave circumstances that the country is passing through, President Hosni Mubarak has decided to leave his position as president of the republic," he said. "He has mandated the Armed Forces Supreme Council to run the state. God is our protector and succor."

We will see what happens next.  The article reports:

"Earlier in the day, the council vowed to guide the country to greater democracy. It said was committed "to shepherding the legitimate demands of the people and endeavoring to their implementation within a defined timetable until a peaceful transition to a democratic society aspired to by the people."

"Abdel-Rahman Samir, one of the protest organizers, said the movement would now open negotiations with the military over democratic reforms but vowed protests would continue to ensure change is carried out.

""We still don't have any guarantees yet -- if we end the whole situation now the it's like we haven't done anything," he said. "So we need to keep sitting in Tahrir until we get all our demands."

"But, he added, "I feel fantastic. .... I feel like we have worked so hard, we planted a seed for a year and a half and now we are now finally sowing the fruits."

"Sally Toma, another of the organizers, said she did not expect the military would try to clear the square. "We still have to sit and talk. We have to hear the army first," she said."

There is some good news here.  If the military keeps its pledge to move toward democracy, the protestors will go away and the country will stabilize.  Also good news is the fact that the Egyptian military has worked closely with the United States on defense for a number of years.  Many of the military leaders are pro-western and appreciate the military aid the United States has given their country.  The unknown here is the role of the Muslim Brotherhood.  When the Muslim Brotherhood was given a role in the Lebanese government as it became a democracy, they simply waited for the opportune moment to make their move.  Five years later they simply took over the government.  That scenario needs to be avoided in Egypt.

Today's Jerusalem Post reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stated that a new Middle East is emerging out of the protests in Egypt--one that will have no signs of Israel and U. S. interference.  That is not a friendly statement.  One of the many reasons I have lost faith in the United Nations is that they used to have rules (which they actually took seriously) about one member country threatening another member country.

Iran is marking the 23rd anniversary of the 1979 revolution that brought the Islamists to power in that country. 

The article at the Jerusalem Post reports:

"On Thursday, Iranian opposition leader Mahdi Karroubi announced via his website, Sahamnews.org, that he has been placed under house arrest, because he called for a rally in support of anti-government demonstrations in Egypt.

"Karroubi petitioned the government for permission to hold a rally, but State Prosecutor Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejehi rejected the request, warning of repercussions should a demonstration take place."

As we watch the rapidly unfolding events in Egypt, we need to remember that a revolution in the Middle East is not always good news.  I would love to see a true democracy arise in Egypt, but I am not optimistic.  Democracy and Sharia law are incompatible, and the majority of Egyptians support many of the tenets of Sharia law.  I am glad that the torture and human rights violations that went on under President Mubarak will end (I think), but I am concerned about exactly what will follow.

Yesterday the Houston Chronicle posted a story about some changes in the methods we use to access our energy sources in America.  One of the things we have to keep in mind as we strive for energy independence that is environmentally sound is that we are a carbon-fuel-based society.  It would be nice to depend on 'clean' energy overnight, but the countries that have attempted that have found that it was extremely expensive and cost thousands of jobs rather than creating them.  If you doubt that, google "Spain + wind energy" and see what you come up with.  There have also been previous stories on the subject on this website.

Innovation is one of the hallmarks of the American economy.  Now, a new drilling technique has been developed that will allow America to access its vast oil and natural gas resources scattered across North Dakota, Colorado, Texas and California.  As usual, environmentalists are suspicious, but so far they have not stopped the production of oil.

The article reports:

"Environmentalists fear that fluids or wastewater from the process, called hydraulic fracturing, could pollute drinking water supplies. The Environmental Protection Agency is now studying its safety in shale drilling. The agency studied use of the process in shallower drilling operations in 2004 and found that it was safe.

"In the Bakken formation, production is rising so fast there is no space in pipelines to bring the oil to market. Instead, it is being transported to refineries by rail and truck. Drilling companies have had to erect camps to house workers.

"Unemployment in North Dakota has fallen to the lowest level in the nation, 3.8 percent -- less than half the national rate of 9 percent. The influx of mostly male workers to the region has left local men lamenting a lack of women. Convenience stores are struggling to keep shelves stocked with food."

That is good news.  The article reports on current and future implications:

"Still, a surge in production last year from the Bakken helped U.S. oil production grow for the second year in a row, after 23 years of decline. This during a year when drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, the nation's biggest oil-producing region, was halted after the BP oil spill.

"U.S. oil production climbed steadily through most of the last century and reached a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day in 1970. The decline since was slowed by new production in Alaska in the 1980s and in the Gulf of Mexico more recently. But by 2008, production had fallen to 5 million barrels per day.

"Within five years, analysts and executives predict, the newly unlocked fields are expected to produce 1 million to 2 million barrels of oil per day, enough to boost U.S. production 20 percent to 40 percent. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates production will grow a more modest 500,000 barrels per day.

"By 2020, oil imports could be slashed by as much as 60 percent, according to Credit Suisse's Morse, who is counting on Gulf oil production to rise and on U.S. gasoline demand to fall.

"At today's oil prices of roughly $90 per barrel, slashing imports that much would save the U.S. $175 billion a year. Last year, when oil averaged $78 per barrel, the U.S. sent $260 billion overseas for crude, accounting for nearly half the country's $500 billion trade deficit.

""We have redefined how to look for oil and gas," says Rehan Rashid, an analyst at FBR Capital Markets. "The implications are major for the nation.""

The two solutions to the current recession are very simple--less government and more innovation.

Hugh Hewitt posted an article at Townhall.com blasting the Republicans recently elected to the House of Representatives for not keeping their pledge to cut spending back to the pre-stimulus spending levels of 2008. 

He opens his article with the following comments:

"The number of Republican Members of Congress who appeared on my radio show between their "thumpin'" in 2006 and their return to power in 2010 who admitted with apparent remorse that "We lost our way" is easily in double digits.

"That was the mantra, and embedded within it an implied pledge that, if the voters would just give them another chance, all would be different.

"How different? Vastly, completely, transcendently different. And the House Republicans took that implied pledge, made it explicit, and put it all in a "Pledge to America" that promised in key language on page 21 that if a new GOP majority was sent to D.C. it would act immediately to cut spending." 

Mr. Hewitt points out that if the Republicans do not keep their pledge, no one will ever believe them again. 

The Republican tide in November was the result of the enthusiasm and involvement of the Tea Party Patriots in the election.  The Republicans ignore the wishes of the Tea Party at their own peril.  I feel very strongly that if the Republicans do not significantly cut the federal budget, there will be a third party--it will be the Republican party.  The enthusiasm in the Republican Party comes from the Tea Party--the Tea Party is looking for serious change in Washington.  If the Republicans do not bring that change, I believe the Tea Party will grow and both the Republicans and Democrats who continue the runaway spending in Washington will be voted out of office.

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The first clue that the new Republicans might not get their way was the fact that the House leadership did not change when they took office.  If the current Republican leadership cannot hear the wishes of the voters, they need to be replaced.

The Wall Street Journal posted a list of the suggested budget cuts on Wednesday.

Mark Steyn on

"Relighting the Lamps of Liberty:

Standing Up For Freedom in a Darkening World"

Ahavath Torah Congregation, Stoughton, Thursday, February 24, 7:30 PM

Mark Steyn, international best-selling author and human rights activist, will speak on "Relighting The Lamps of Liberty: Standing Up For Freedom in a Darkening World," at Ahavath Torah Congregation, 1179 Central Street, Stoughton, MA on Thursday, February 24th at 7:30 PM.   Steyn's book America Alone: The End of The World as We Know It was a bestseller in the United States and Canada.  In his new book Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech and the Twilight of The West he discusses his legendary battle with Canada's Human Rights Commission.

Steyn is a visiting fellow at Hillsdale College, a popular guest host of America's number one radio show, The Rush Limbaugh Program, and of the popular cable show Hannity.  Steyn's writing on politics, arts and culture is published regularly throughout the English-speaking world.  In the US his column appears in newspapers including The Washington Times, The Philadelphia Bulletin, The Orange County Register in California,  Investors' Business Daily and The Wall Street Journal.  He also writes for The New Criterion and National Review.  In Canada Steyn is a contributing editor to Maclean's, the Dominion's oldest and biggest-selling news weekly.  His writing also appears in The Jerusalem Post, the Middle East's leading English-language daily; The Australian, Australia's national newspaper; Investigate and Hawke's Bay Today in New Zealand; and, in Italy, Il Foglio (in translation).  Steyn also appears weekly on The Hugh Hewitt Radio Show.

Admission is $10 per person.  A VIP "meet and greet" with Steyn will be open to donors/sponsors of the event at $100 per person or $1000 per organization at 6:30 PM.  For more information contact Ahavath Torah Congregation at 781-344-8733 or e-mail office@atorah.org

I am not sure if both of these articles reflect an actual plan to end Obamacare--one article details a plan to end it--the other article details a move that if successful will end it intentionally or not.

Politico reported Monday that a group of 'moderate Democrats' are looking for a way to roll back the part of Obamacare that requires everyone to purchase health insurance. 

The article reports:

"And it's not just health care.  The senators are prepared to break with the White House on a wide range of issues:  embracing deeper spending cuts, scaling back business regulations and overhauling environmental rules.  The moderates most likely to buck their party include Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Jon Tester of Montana--all of whom are up for reelection in 2012 and represent states Obama lost in 2008."

Meanwhile, yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that the House is planning to defund Obamacare before any money can be spent to implement the program.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

"The House last month approved a bill to repeal the health law outright, but the measure was rejected last week by the Senate. The GOP's backup plan calls for repealing specific portions of the law, such as its requirement that all individuals buy health insurance. The GOP amendment reflects yet another strategy: choking off the money needed to put the law into effect.

"The spending bill will also have to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, which is unlikely to support a defunding provision. That means that Mr. Obama's signature health initiative will be one of the major sticking points in passing the government-wide spending bill known as a continuing resolution.

"The measure is needed to keep the government running after March 4, when the current stop-gap spending bill expires. House Republicans are using the bill as a vehicle for making deep cuts in spending for the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30."

It seems to be understood that repealing the requirement that everyone purchase health insurance would make the financing of the bill impossible.  That is the provision that the courts have recently declared unconstitutional.  Because Obamacare is the President's signature legislative accomplishment, this is going to be a very heated battle.  Start the popcorn, and sit back and watch the fireworks!

I realize that this article is going to sound like whining.  I apologize for that--but I am whining.  The amount of time and money this President has spent on recreation and vacations is staggering.  If the economy were in better shape, it might not be so obvious, but the excesses in the President's Hawaiian vacation and the excesses in the First Lady's Spanish vacation were in sharp contrast to the current financial situation of many Americans. 

Now the Democrat Party has chosen to follow that example.  ABC News reported yesterday on the recent Democrat and Republican retreats.  Last month, the Republicans held a retreat at the Library of Congress.  Meanwhile, the Democrats have left town for a three-day retreat at a swanky 573-acre resort outside of Charlottesville called the Boar's Head Inn. 

Mitch McConnell chose to be tactful in his comments on the retreat location, saying that where the Democrats chose to retreat was their decision.  However, not everyone was so charitable. 

The article reports:

""Just because they're super-wealthy and don't have a problem taking off to a four-diamond resort during the middle of the work-week doesn't make them out of touch. What makes them out of touch is that they think it's a good idea to raise taxes on jobs and energy during the middle of a recession," sniped a senior GOP aide."

Being elected to a national office should not qualify you for a life of luxurious retreats at other people's expense.  The location of this retreat at a time when America is in the middle of a recession and has an unemployment rate of over 9 per cent is totally unacceptable.

Representative Ted Poe, who represents Texas' 2nd Congressional District, posted an article at Human Events today about the ongoing battle between Texas and the federal government. 

Representative Poe reports:

"Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) leadership continued their game of hardball by stripping Texas of its authority to issue greenhouse gas permits. It is painfully obvious that the EPA is making an example out of Texas. Out of the 13 states that initially objected to the EPA's efforts to regulate, Texas is the only one who has not surrendered to the intrusion of the federal government. As a result, the EPA is punishing Texas for not giving in to their demands."

The issue is whether or not the Obama Administration can implement the Cap and Trade legislation that did not pass Congress by using the Environmental Protection Agency.  Representative Poe introduced H. R. 153, the Ensuring Affordable Energy Act, to stop efforts to use the Environmental Protection Agency to implement a program that Congress failed to pass. 

Representative Poe states:

"Instead of making an example out of Texas, perhaps the EPA should use Texas as an example. Texas has simultaneously improved its environment and economy. The Texas Flexible Permitting Program has been successful in reducing emissions and allowing industries in Texas to thrive. According to a report from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, the ozone levels in Texas decreased by 27 percent between 2000 and 2009. The national average decrease in ozone levels over this same time period was 12 percent. Our state is dedicated to finding cleaner energy alternatives, but we also know that we need to utilize our known sources of energy effectively and safely."  

Thank you, sir, for your willingness to stand up to the government when it oversteps its authority.

NBC News in Chicago reported yesterday that Rod Blagojevich says that there is a missing undercover tape that will prove his innocence. 

The article reports:

""To be certain, the evidence of such a phone call is purely circumstantial.  In their filing, the attorneys note that a report issued by the Obama transition team found that "between the time Mr. Emanuel decided to accept the position of Chief of Staff in the White House, and December 8, 2008, Mr. Emanuel had about four telephone conversations with John Harris, Chief of Staff to the Governor, on the subject of the Senate seat."

 

"They argue that the government has only tendered three of those conversations. 

 

""The fourth and final phone call is the call that is mysteriously missing," writes defense attorney Lauren Kaesberg.  "The government never turned over this pivotal recording, nor a transcript of this call.""

I don't mean to be cynical, but somehow I am a little skeptical that this tape will ever be produced.  It may actually exist, but I doubt the jury in the case will ever hear it!  Both sides of this case are due in court in two weeks.  Stay tuned.

If you watched the interview of President Obama by Bill O'Reilly on Super Bowl Sunday, you saw the President claim that "didn't raise taxes once."  Well, there are a few people who were doing some fact checking on that interview.

Yesterday CNS News reported that Americans For Tax Reform disputes that claim.  Hot Air also posted an article yesterday detailing the reasons why that claim is false.

According to Hot Air:

"The idea that Obama did not raise taxes is just plain wrong. He signed legislation raising taxes on cigarettes and other tobacco products soon after taking office; that money goes to pay for children's health insurance programs. The law went into effect in 2009. He also signed the health care law, which includes taxes on indoor tanning that went into effect last year. (Regular PolitiFact readers will remember our fact-check of reality TV star Snooki and her complaint about the new tax last year.)

"The new health care law also includes a tax on people who decide not to have health insurance, as an incentive for them to get coverage. The tax phases in gradually, starting in 2014. By 2016, the tax would be $695 per uninsured person up to a maximum of three times that amount, or $2,085. The law includes exemptions for people who can't find affordable insurance, and a few other special circumstances.

"More significantly, the health care law includes new taxes on the wealthy, starting in 2013. Individuals who make more than $200,000 and couples that make more than $250,000 will see additional Medicare taxes of 0.9 percent. They will also, for the first time, have to pay Medicare taxes on their investment income at a 3.8 percent rate. (Current law is that all workers and employers split a 2.9 percent Medicare tax; the self-employed pay all of it.)"

The CNS News article cited President Obama record on taxes:

"Responding on Monday, ATR said Obama's claim of being a net-tax-cutter "rests on the temporary tax relief he has signed into law. "That tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been permanent.  In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent tax cuts," ATR said. 

""Over 90 percent of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary," said ATR. "100 percent of the tax increases Obama signed into law are, however, permanent ... Permanent changes to tax law signed by Obama amount to a net tax hike of $618.7 billion.""

Don't forget the new tax on medical device manufacturers, a higher tax on withdrawals from health savings accounts, a cap on flexible spending accounts, a surtax on investment income, an excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans, a hike in the Medicare payroll tax, and a tax on indoor tanning services,

That sounds to me that the claim by President Obama that he has not raised taxes will not hold water.

Investors.com posted an editorial about the dangers of including the Muslim Brotherhood in the new Egyptian government.  The editorial points out that if the Muslim Brotherhood is included in the government of Egypt, they would be part of a regime that has an active WMD program.

The question becomes whether or not the Muslim Brotherhood is a radical Muslim group or simply a nice group of moderate Muslims who want democracy in Egypt. 

The editorial points out:

"As retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis wrote in Human Events this week, "An Egyptian government dominated by the Brotherhood would quickly cast aside its democratic and nonviolent facade to establish Egypt as an Islamic state."

"Not scary enough for you? Senior investigative producer Robert Windrem of MSNBC reports that "Egypt has quietly carried out research and development on weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear, chemical, biological and missile technology."

"This R&D, he adds, has "continued virtually without pause over the past three decades," based on interviews with U.S. officials and reviews of intelligence."

The article further reports:

"Don't worry, we're told -- Mohammed Badie, the recently elected head of the Brotherhood, is really a "moderate." For the record, here's what Badie had to say in one sermon last year:

""Arab and Muslim regimes are betraying their people by failing to confront the Muslim's real enemies -- not only Israel, but also the United States. Waging jihad against both of these infidels is a commandment of Allah that cannot be disregarded. Governments have no right to stop their people from fighting the U.S.""

This does not sound like a moderate Muslim.  Secretary of State Clinton encouraged the Muslim Brotherhood to be involved in the negotiations that will determine the future of Egypt.  That may be a practical move since they are going to be there anyway, but it seems very naive.  Hopefully, she knows what she is doing.

Today's Christian Science Monitor is reporting that the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) is suspending its operations due to a lack of funds.  The Democratic Leadership Council was formed by moderate Democrats in 1985 in response to Ronald Reagan's re-election in 1984.  The group was supposed to bring the Democrat party back to the center of the political spectrum after the party had drifted significantly left. 

The Los Angeles Times reported today:

"This week, the DLC said it was shutting its doors because of financial problems. The move was hastened by the departure of its leader, Bruce Reed, who was hired by Vice President Joe Biden as his chief of staff."

There have been other organizations that have grown out of the DLC that also claim the 'centrist' label (although many of them are left of center). 

According to the Christian Science Monitor:

"And there are plenty of other centrist Democratic organizations picking up the slack. The Progressive Policy Institute, a think tank that spun off from the DLC in 2009, is alive and well. So is the New Democrat Network and Third Way.  The Center for American Progress, founded by Clinton White House alumnus John Podesta, also qualifies as centrist and has the benefit of close ties to the Obama White House. The last DLC-er who could make that boast - the group's CEO, Bruce Reed - just left the organization to become Vice President Biden's chief of staff.  He had just completed a stint as executive director of Mr. Obama's fiscal commission."

I will admit to being very skeptical about President Obama's 'move to the center.'  I am more inclined to watch his actions, not his words, during the next two years.  Unfortunately the 'blue dog' Democrat is becoming an endangered species.  There are only 25 'blue dogs' left in Congress at this point.  The DLC at least provided the possibility of compromise between Republicans and Democrats.  Now that the DLC is gone, I find communication and compromise much less likely. 

Today's Washington Examiner reports that Chrysler aired the longest Super Bowl advertisement in history yesterday.  The ad is supposed to have cost 'less than $9 million' according to CEO Sergio Marchionne.  At the same time, Chrysler is seeking a 'better deal' on its government loans. 

The article states:

"That's right: Chrysler took $15 billion from taxpayers, to which it wasn't entitled, and at an industry convention its CEO calls taxpayers a word that is defined as "someone who acts in a disreputable, unethical, or unscrupulous way, especially in the practice of law, politics and used car sales." Message received: "Taxpayers' money saved a car company from bankruptcy and all they got was this lousy Super Bowl commercial."

"And what a commercial. Chrysler turns to America to say that because Detroit has been "through hell and back" it has endured the "hottest fires which makes the hardest steel," and that the reason people don't know that is because newspaper reporters "don't know what [people in Detroit] are capable of.""

There are a few problems with Chrysler's claims about its current situation.  First of all, the government program that allowed Chrysler to avoid bankruptcy broke many of the country's existing bankruptcy laws--the unions were given preference over the preferred stockholders and there were other financial irregularities.  Second of all, Detroit is not at all out of the woods, and third, the article says that newspaper reporters do know what Detroit is capable of and also can see a potential for good things in the future for the city. 

Anyway, I love the quote, "Taxpayers' money saved a car company from bankruptcy and all they got was this lousy Super Bowl commercial."  Good grief!

Hot Air posted an article yesterday about Israel's quest for energy independence.  That makes a lot of sense.  Israel is surrounded by countries that have publicly stated that they do not want Israel to exist.  Israel depends on some of these countries for her energy needs.

According to My Way:

"The explosion in Egypt's northern Sinai Peninsula on Saturday came amid a popular uprising against longtime Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The blast set off a massive fire that was contained by shutting off the flow of gas to Jordan and Israel. Egypt's natural gas company said the fire was caused by a gas leak, but local officials said an explosive device was detonated inside the terminal."

The article at My Way also reports that under a deal signed three years ago, Egypt will supply Israel with 1.7 billion cubic meters of gas a year for at least 15 years.  Egypt supplies up to half of the energy Israel uses to power its electrical plants.  It should be noted here that some of the protestors in Egypt are already claiming that the peace treaty with Israel was between Mubarak and Israel--not Egypt and Israel.  I don't think I would depend on any new regime to honor the energy contract.

Israel has recently discovered large reserves of natural gas in Israeli waters and is rapidly moving to tap them. 

The article at Hot Air concludes:

"Good for them. Of course, we're sitting on massive reserves of natural gas here in the United States, only the government seems to be taking the opposite approach and hindering our efforts to capture and utilize it. Similarly, Canada and Alaska have large reserves, but the U.S. government is botching efforts to build the pipelines and other infrastructure required to take full advantage of it across all of North America.

"Israel is quick to recognize that energy security is every bit as important to stability and security as all other elements of defense. It's a lesson that a few people in Washington could use a refresher course on."

We need to follow the example of Israel and stop bankrolling our enemies because we refuse to develop our own energy resources.

On Saturday, Larry Kudlow posted an article at the Daily Caller about the unemployment numbers for January that were released on Friday.  According to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the blizzards across America caused 886,000 workers to report "not at work due to bad weather."  In past years the average for January was about 300,000.  The numbers released also report a 4.9 million jump in the part-time workforce. 

Mr. Kudlow reports that numbers from the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) are consistent with the government's report that Manufacturing jobs in the United States rose 50,000 in January.  The numbers also show that average hourly earnings increased by four-tenths of 1 percent. 

Mr. Kudlow states that he believes that the economic recovery is happening, regardless of the continuing high unemployment numbers.  He also points out that the numbers released show increased inflation pressure.  The price of oil has recently increased and the price of groceries is also climbing.  Those two items could seriously hinder a return to economic growth.

Ian Mihai Pacepa was head of Romainia's Presidential House.  His book RED HORIZONS was the soure of many of the accusations against the Romanian leader Ceausescu during his trial.

Lt. Gen. Pacepa posted an article at the American Thinker today stating his perspective on what is happening in Egypt. 

The article states:

"From my vantage point, I see this crisis as an updated version of the Kremlin's highly secret Cold War effort to turn the Islamic world into an enemy of the United States.  In my other life as a top figure in the KGB intelligence community, I was involved in that effort, as I have described elsewhere "Russian Footprints," National Review Online, August 24, 2006."

Lt. Gen. Pacepa points out that the current wave of rebellion in the Middle East is only occurring in countries that are pro-American and that the people demanding democracy are burning the American flag (Did you also notice that many of the protest signs are in English?). 

The article also points out something I hadn't noticed about the early demonstrations in Egypt:

"Even more significant is that the Hezb'allah representatives demonstrating on the first day of the Cairo uprising were carrying flags displaying the hammer and sickle.  That was evidently a mistake caused by overzealousness -- my enthusiastic young subordinates in the Romanian foreign intelligence service (the DIE) sometimes used to make similar goofs.  In Cairo, the error was quickly rectified, and now the hammer and sickle is nowhere to be seen."

ABC News reported yesterday that the U.K. Telegraph story reported here (rightwinggranny.com) was not true.

ABC reports:

"State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley called the report "nonsense," saying the information sharing about U.S. transfers of nuclear weapons to the U.K. dates back to the original START treaty, an assertion backed up by the White House and British government officials."

That's not what the leaked documents say. 

The U.K. Telegram reports:

"A series of classified messages sent to Washington by US negotiators show how information on Britain's nuclear capability was crucial to securing Russia's support for the "New START" deal.

"Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK's Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US."

ABC is trying to blunt the negative impact of this news.  The truth is simple--the Obama Administration sold out Britain.  They should be ashamed.  If you have doubts, follow the links in the U.K. Telegraph article and read the actual documents.

If you read the comments below the Telegraph article, you begin to understand that there are many Brits very unhappy about this situation.

On January 5th, Representative John Fleming and 27 co-sponsors introduced H.R. 38, titled "To rescind funds appropriated to the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund under the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010."  On February 1st, the Bill was referred to the House Subcommittee on Health.  On Febrary 5th, the Bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  You can find more information at Thomas.gov.

According to a February 4th press release by Representative Fleming, this is th purpose of the Bill:

"to rescind the Health Insurance Reform Implementation Fund, a $1 billion fund appropriated as part of the Reconciliation package to pay for federal administrative expenses at the IRS and the Department of Health and Human Services to carry out the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU:  As of the end of November 2010, $40.8 million of these funds have been obligated to provide for administrative expenses of the Health and Human Services and the IRS to implement the new health care reform law.  By rescinding this fund, $900 million would be returned to the treasury, thereby reducing the federal deficit.  

While this represents only a small fraction of the astronomical cost of the new health care law, it would have a substantial affect on implementation as it removes the funding source for administrative expenses in carrying out the laws."

I suspect this bill will get through the House easily.  It will be interesting to see what the Senate does with it.

Michael Totten posted an article at Power Line Blog about the current situation in Egypt.  Michael is a reader-funded foreign correspondent and foreign policy analyst who has reported from the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasus. 

Michael's work has appeared in a wide variety of respected publications, but he made his name on the Internet. Michael won the 2007 Weblog Award for Best Middle East or Africa Blog, he won it again in 2008, and was named Blogger of the Year in 2006 by The Week magazine for his dispatches from the Middle East.

Michael's book The Road to Fatima Gate: The Beirut Spring, the Rise of Hezbollah, and the Iranian War Against Israel will be published by Encounter Books this April (and it is available for pre-order now). He is a former resident of Beirut.

Michael's article was about an Egyptian blogger known as Egyptian Sandmonkey.  His is a friend of Michael's and Michael posted the last thing that Sandmonkey had blogged.  Please follow the link to Power Line to read what he wrote.

Egyptian Sandmonkey was arrested and later released by the Egyptian authorities.  He is among the protestors of the current government and is working toward freedom for the Egyptian people. 

Following are the last two paragraphs from Egyptian Sandmonkey's last post:

"Now, just in case this isn't clear: This protest is not one made or sustained by the Muslim Brotherhood, it's one that had people from all social classes and religious background in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood only showed up on Tuesday, and even then they were not the majority of people there by a long shot. We tolerated them there since we won't say no to fellow Egyptians who wanted to stand with us, but neither the Muslims Brotherhood not any of the Opposition leaders have the ability to turn out one tenth of the numbers of Protesters that were in Tahrir on Tuesday. This is a revolution without leaders. Three Million individuals choosing hope instead of fear and braving death on hourly basis to keep their dream of freedom alive. Imagine that.

"The End is near. I have no illusions about this regime or its leader, and how he will pluck us and hunt us down one by one till we are over and done with and 8 months from now will pay people to stage fake protests urging him not to leave power, and he will stay "because he has to acquiesce to the voice of the people". This is a losing battle and they have all the weapons, but we will continue fighting until we can't. I am heading to Tahrir right now with supplies for the hundreds injured, knowing that today the attacks will intensify, because they can't allow us to stay there come Friday, which is supposed to be the game changer. We are bringing everybody out, and we will refuse to be anything else than peaceful. If you are in Egypt, I am calling on all of you to head down to Tahrir today and Friday. It is imperative to show them that the battle for the soul of Egypt isn't over and done with. I am calling you to bring your friends, to bring medical supplies, to go and see what Mubarak's gurantees look like in real life. Egypt needs you. Be Heroes."

Egyptian Sandmonkey is the kind of man I would like to see leading Egypt in the future.  He understands freedom and that it has a price.  Godspeed, sir.

I have British friends.  I believe that the histories or America and Britain will be forever intertwined.  It breaks my heart to read what I am about to post.  There is no way to apologize for the damage that has been done or for the kind of person who would authorize what happened.

Yesterday the U. K. Telegraph reported on some additional information leaked by Wikileaks.  As much as I have very mixed emotions about Wikileaks, what was leaked is important.

According to the article:

"Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

"Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain's policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal."

I am not at all schooled in diplomacy and how diplomatic things work, but this seems to me to be a major breach of trust on the part of America.  America had no right to do this.

The article reports:

"Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:

"America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.

"Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantanamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.

"David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not "be controlled" after she made an undercover TV documentary.

"Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes."

America and Britain have a history together.  They have worked in unison to spread freedom around the world.  I am so sorry that America currently has a President who chooses to forget the unique relationship between the two countries.

The article reports:

"Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK's Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

"Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain." 

It is disgusting that the Obama Administration betrayed the trust of one of our oldest and best allies.  It was a bad treaty to begin with; betraying a friend makes it worse.

I am not an economist--but I do occasionally pay attention to jobless numbers when they come out.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today that attempts to explain the latest set of numbers and the spin the White House is trying to put on them.

The January unemployment figure is listed at 9 per cent.  However, only 36,000 jobs were added to the job market. 

Mr. Morrissey reports:

"Looking at the A-6 table, which compares numbers January 2010 to January 2011 (not seasonally adjusted), we can see that the unemployment rate for those without disabilities has dropped from 10.4% to 9.7%.  The number of non-disabled adults outside the work force has grown substantially in that period, from 62.8 million to 64.7 million.  That far outstrips population growth and indicates that people are still leaving the work force in large numbers.  In the A-16 table for the same period (not seasonally adjusted), the number of people outside the workforce has grown from 83.9 million to 86.2 million, again showing a large increase.

"The topline rate number looks better, but it also looks increasingly irrelevant.  The Department of Labor shows that the average monthly growth of jobs over the last 12 months has been 97,000, not enough to keep up with population growth.  That's the key measure, and it's simply not getting any better, nor any more consistent."

Basically, you can make numbers say anthing you want them to say.  I have no idea if the economy is getting better or not.  What I do know is that I am paying more at the gas pump and more at the grocery store.  That tells me that things are not headed in a direction I want them to go. 

A few days ago, I posted the link to the video of retired Lt. Col. Allen West speaking on the subject of terrorism.  What I didn't post was the reason that the Lt. Col. is retired.  This is the story:

This new Congressman was an extremely popular commander in Iraq .  He was forced to retire because during an intense combat action a few of his men were captured.  At the same time his men had captured one of the guys who were with the Iraqis who captured his men. 

Knowing that time was crucial and his interrogators were not getting anywhere with the prisoner COL West took matters into his own hands.  He burst into the room and demanded thru an interpreter that the prisoner tell him where his men were being taken.  The prisoner refused so COL West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner's crotch and fired.  Then the COL told the prisoner that the next shot would not miss.  So the prisoner said he would show where the American service members were being taken.  The Americans were rescued.  Someone filed a report on incorrect handling of prisoners.  COL West was forced to retire.

I have very mixed emotions about this event.  I don't support the idea of torturing prisoners.  However, I am relatively sure that had Lt. Col. West not acted in the manner in which he did, there would have been American deaths as a result.  I would like to point out that the prisoner was not harmed in any way--he was simply frightened.  If the situation had been a dirty bomb in New York City, would a policeman who acted in a similar matter be disciplined?

I think the thing we need to remember here is that we are at war.  People's lives are at stake.  The role of our military is to make sure that we lose as few of our men as possible when making sure the terrorists lose as many of theirs as possible.  If I were running the government, I would want our enemies to be unsure whether or not they would be tortured.  The fact that we have made it very public that we will not torture (or scare) prisoners has not made any difference in the way the terrorists treat our soldiers when they are captured.  War is ugly.  I think we need to let the people fighting it to be somewhat ugly (within reason--the terrorists was scared--not harmed).  Unfortunately, I am not sure that our current military understands that.

Hugh Hewitt posted an article at Townhall.com about the impact some of the decisions recently made in the state of California will have on the business climate there. 

Mr. Hewitt reports:

"Earlier this week I wrote on the so-called "Green Chemistry Initiative" for the Washington Examiner, and one of my law partners quickly emailed to let me know that wasn't even the worst business news out of the state that week! Gary Wolensky subsequently posted at HughHewitt.com about the California Supreme Court's decision in Kwikset Corporation v. The Superior Court of Orange County, and the phone has been ringing and email in-box filling up since then with exclamations of disbelief. The decision opens the doors to thousands of new nuisance lawsuits against every product on every shelf in California, even as the new "green chemistry" regulations when they appear in final form will apply to all products sold in the state. 2011 is opening with a double feature horror flick for job generators even as the state careens towards unofficial but very real bankruptcy."

Mr. Hewitt is a practicing attorney as well as a law professor in California and is very much in tune with court decisions that impact business.  The Kwickset case essentially says that anyone can sue a company even if they were not harmed by the product.  If your pancake mix has a small error in the ingredients label, anyone in California can sue the company that manufactures it.  This decision, plus the 90 pages of 'green chemistry' legislation is going to keep businesses moving out of California to states where they do not have to deal with such issues.

If the states are the laboratories for government policy, California is showing all of us how to bankrupt a state.  That's a shame, since it is such a beautiful state.  The questions is, "When Congress is asked to bail out California because it has gone broke as a result of the laws it has passed, what will Congress do?"

Yesterday's Daily Caller reported that the New York City Council is preparing to ban smoking in all parks, beaches, boardwalks, and even Times Square. 

The article reports:

"When this legislation is passed, all New Yorkers will be able to enjoy a walk in the park or a day at the beach without having to inhale secondhand smoke," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn when she and Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled the proposed bill last year.  "This bill will save lives and make New York City a healthier place to live."

I am not a smoker.  I am also fairly sensitive to cigarette smoke.  However, I am concerned about what I see as the continuing erosion of the rights of smokers.  I have really mixed emotions about this.  I appreciate not having to deal with smoke in restaurants.  I appreciate not smelling smoke at the beach.  However, if secondhand smoke is that toxic, why is smoking legal?  Why is the government subsidizing tobacco farmers?

Why is the City Council targeting smokers?  Don't they have anything better to do?  Is second hand smoke a major cause of New York City's air pollution? 

Bloomberg.com is reporting today that U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman has ruled that the Obama Administration acted in contempt of court by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the court had struck it down. 

According to the article:

"Interior Department regulators acted with "determined disregard" by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

""Each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance," Feldman said in the ruling.

""Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt," Feldman said."

The Presidency was never intended to be all-powerful.  There are three branches of the American government--the Presidency, the Congress, and the Judicial--they are designed to create checks and balances on each other's power.  The Obama Administration's ignoring of a judicial ruling is disturbing.

The article reports:

""President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months," Jim Adams, the association's president, said in a release after the ruling. "As a result, thousands of workers are out of jobs, Americans are paying more for gasoline and heating oil, and our nation is becoming even more dependent on unstable nations for our energy needs."

"Feldman also ordered the government to pay the legal fees of Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, which filed the initial lawsuit. The company had described the fees as "significant."

"The case is Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, 2:10-cv-01663, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans)."

As the price of oil rises to $100 a barrel, the informal moratorium on deepwater drilling is dragging the American economy down.  The moratorium needs to end.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun to enforce new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from new or expanded power plants.  The EPA has also issued its first exemption to the new rules.

According to the Environment & Energy News:

"The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.

"According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to "grandfather" projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2)."

If you look further into this 'exemption', it reminds me of all the waivers given in Obamacare. 

The article at the Washington Examiner reports:

"The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine."

I am sure that the fact that GE CEO Jeff Immelt is so close to President Obama has nothing to do with this exemption.  Yeah, right.  The government under the present administraiton is getting totally out of control.  This is Chicago politics in Washington.  It needs to be stopped.  Congress is planning to act to restrict the EPA in their actions (they are putting in place the 'cap and trade bill' that Congress could not pass).  I hope Congress is successful.

Please follow this link to the U. S. Geological Survey website for their report on oil resources in the United States. 

This is the information on North Dakota and Montana's Bakken Formation:

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest "continuous" oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A "continuous" oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest "continuous" oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

"It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil - the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today's technology?" said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. "To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation."

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.

Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana - the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.

At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.
The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.

The bottom line here is very simple--we have the energy suppllies to be self-sufficient.  What we don't have is a President and Congress smart enough to develop and use them.

CNS News is reporting today that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stated that the way for America to solve its energy problem is for the government to get out of the way and allow the private sector to develop the country's own natural resources--coal, oil, and natural gas.

Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Chamber's Institute for 21st Century Energy, spoke Tuesday at the Chamber's national headquarters in Washington, D.C., at an event to unveil the institute's new plan, "Facing Our Energy Realities: A  to Fuel Our Recovery."

According to the article:

"The plan - based on an "Energy Reality Tour" involving travel to 30 states and meeting with some 15,000 business leaders across the country over the last year - calls for maximizing U.S. energy sources, ending regulations that hinder developing those sources, making clean energy more affordable and eliminating energy trade barriers.

""The point of this plan is to recognize our economic reality," Harbert said. "And it is not to spend a whole lot of new taxpayers' dollars.

""In fact, it's to find ways that are increasingly revenue neutral; that will increase the availability of energy while at the same time removing barriers to investment that will actually create revenue and create jobs in this country," Harbert said.

"The plan will be submitted to the Obama administration and Congress, Harbert said."

If nothing else, the situation in Egypt should make us more wary of being dependent on energy sources that may not be reliably friendly to us.  Common sense dictates that developing our own energy resources, rather than depending on anyone else to supply our energy needs, is a good idea.

The Hill is reporting today that the vote on Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) amendment to repeal the healthcare reform law would take place in the late Wednesday afternoon, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., because many senators want to speak on it.

According to the article:

"The Senate will also vote Wednesday on an amendment offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who could face a tough race in 2012, to repeal one of the healthcare law's most controversial provisions. Stabenow's amendment would strike a requirement that businesses report to the IRS vendor payments exceeding $600 annually."

Although I agree with striking down that part of the law (and also the rest of the law), we need to remember that the requirement to report vendor payments was one way Congress expected to pay for the law.  To strike down that part of the law is to increase the overall cost of the law.

Democrats are in a very awkward position with this vote.  For example, the article reports:

"Stabenow's amendment will give political cover to endangered Democrats such as West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D), who have called for the healthcare reform law to be fixed but do not plan to support McConnell's proposal to repeal it.

""The president's plan -- 'Obamacare,' as it's been called -- is far too reaching. It's overreaching. It needs to have a lot of it repealed," Manchin said in October. "If you can't fix that, repeal the whole thing."

"Manchin said through a spokeswoman Tuesday that he would not vote to repeal the entire law, however."

The healthcare reform act is a bad law that is not supported by the people of America.  The question at hand is very simple, "Will the Democrats listen to the people, or will they continue on their path to drive over a cliff?"  It should be an interesting debate and an even more interesting vote.

On June 20, 2005, the BBC quoted Condoleeza Rice:

"The US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had "achieved neither","

The article commented:

National Review Online's the Corner posted an update on the progress of the Financial Reform law that Congress passed last summer.  When Congress passed the Financial Reform bill, much was made of the fact that this bill would put in place regulations that would prevent the kind of financial meltdown that occurred in 2008.  There was one glaring problem with the bill--it did nothing to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill did, however, require that the White House release a report to Congress detailing how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be reformed.  They were required by the law to release the report yesterday--the report has not yet been released.

The article reports:

"The Obama Administration's repeated inability to propose a plan to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac calls into question their commitment to taxpayer protection and their ability to effectively govern on this issue," Hensarling added. "After more than $150 billion in Fannie and Freddie bailouts, we can no longer afford to allow the Administration to kick the can down the road."

"Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Baucus (R., Ala.) also criticized the administration, saying in a statement that "the Democrats always offer an excuse for not meeting deadlines, even those they themselves impose.""

There really is not a need for the report--anyone with any common sense could write it in five minutes.  Until the government stops underwriting risky mortgages and wondering why there are so many foreclosures, I suspect we will not be immune from further financial challenges.

The story begins with a Washington Examiner article posted yesterday.  The article explains some of the details in the U.S. District Court decision regarding Obamacare. 

The article reports:

In the suit brought by 26 states, (U.S. District Court Judge Roger) Vinson found that "Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority" by including the individual mandate and held the entire act unconstitutional "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable" from the rest of the law." 

Yesterday's Daily Caller reports that:

"Obama administration officials are vowing to continue implementation of the president's health care law "apace" despite a second ruling that the law is unconstitutional, calling the decision by Judge Robert Vinson "a plain case of judicial overreaching" well outside mainstream legal thought."

The article points out that the states represented in the case may use to ruling to avoid funding the implementation of Obamacare in their states. 

Next, Guy Benson at Townhall.com is reporting that Mitch McConnell is planning to attach the repeal of Obamacare bill as an amendment to Federal Aviation legislation currently being considered in the Senate.  This sets up a very interesting situation.  Democrats have already introduced legislation to eliminate the 1099 small business requirement on expenditures of $600.  The Democrats are hoping that if they can be seen as opposing some of the more horrible aspects of the bill, they can get away with voting against repeal.  The problem for the Democrats is very simple--the majority of Americans support repeal of the bill.  As Obamacare begins to take effect, there are fewer options in health insurance, the cost of some health insurance policies have risen sharply while some of the covereage has decreased.  There are also new restrictions on Flexible spending accounts.  The American people are beginning to see that many of the promises made to get Obamacare passed are already being broken. 

I am not a lawyer, so I am not sure what happens next.  However, it does seem to me that a Contempt of Court charge may not be too far away if the Obama Admininstration continues to move ahead with healthcare reform before this case is decided at the Supreme Court.  We are not anywhere near a happy ending for anyone.

Thomas Sowell posted an article at Townhall.com about the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to get involved in the issue of spilled milk.  Yes, you read that right. 

The article states:

"In a classic example of this process (any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose), the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file "emergency management" plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train "first responders" and build "containment facilities" if there is a flood of spilled milk."

Why not just call in the local alley cats to lap it up?  I apologize.  I am not taking this seriously.  As part of this new initiative, the EPA will be hiring people to inspect farmers' reports and prosecute farmers who do not fully comply with the new regulations.  Thus, more money will be taken from the taxpayers and given to the government. 

President Obama recently stated that he was planning to explore the possibility of reducing burdensome regulations.  I think I have a suggestion as to where he might start!