March 2011 Archives

This story is based on two articles--one from 10 News and one from the UK Daily Mail.  Last weekend three Middle-eastern men tried to gain unauthorized access to Camp Pendleton.  The fact that they were caught had to do with the alertness of a garage attendant nearby.

The UK Daily Mail reports:

"The security alert at Camp Pendelton in San Diego took place shortly after midnight on Saturday after a garage attendant had reported overhearing terrorist threats from three men at a nearby garage that afternoon.

"The attendant later told military investigators the trio asked for directions for Camp Pendleton before leaving."

The incident shows how important it is for all of us to be alert at all times. 

10 News reports:

"John, who does undercover security and anti-terrorism work for Eagle Eye Security Solutions, did not want to be identified.

"He told 10News the Camp Pendleton incident sounds like a possible probe or dry run and said their visits raise a few red flags.

""Number one: they went on base twice. Their stories didn't stick, kinda wishy washy. Number two: the vehicle, the condition of the vehicle," said John. "They could have been probing the security, not just cameras, sensors, individual security from MPs. Three: [they] could have wanted to know what background checks would have produced."

"A criminal background check on the trio conducted by the Department of Homeland Security found no "derogatory records" for the men. Additionally, the U.S. Border Patrol said the immigration statuses for the three men were confirmed and they did not appear on any terrorist watch databases."

The bottom line here is very simple--the threat of terrorism is still with us.

AN EVENING WITH ANDY McCARTHY

"The Grand Jihad"

April 11^th at

7:30 PM

Ahavath Torah Congregation

1179 Central Street

Stoughton, MA 02072

Admission: $10

On Monday, the New York Times posted an article about city officials in San Gabriel, California, closing down a house that was used for 'maternity tourists.' 

The article reported:

"For months, officials say, the house was home to "maternity tourists," in this case, women from China who had paid tens of thousands of dollars to deliver their babies in the United States, making the infants automatic American citizens. Officials shut down the home, sending the 10 mothers who had been living there with their babies to nearby motels.

""These were not women living in squalor -- it was a well taken care of place and clean, but there were a lot of women and babies," said Clayton Anderson, a city inspector who shut down the house on March 9. "I have never seen anything like this before. We really couldn't determine the exact number of people living there.""

The house that was closed down was neat and clean and populated by women from China.  The women involved were here legally.  The children born here were not 'anchor babies' in the sense that their mothers were here illegally.  The debate over giving American citizenship to anyone born here has generaly centered on anchor babies rather than babies born to women here legally.

The article states that the State Department cannot deny a woman a visa simply because she is pregnant.

The article points out:

""These people aren't doing anything in violation of our laws," said Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates tougher immigration controls. "But if anything, it is worse than illegal immigrants delivering a baby here. Those kids are socialized as Americans. This phenomenon of coming to the U.S. and then leaving with people who have unlimited access to come back is just ridiculous.""

To me, this is a whole new aspect of the idea that any baby born in America automatically becomes a citizen.

It was interesting to see the AARP strongly support Obamacare despite the fact that Obamacare took money out of Medicare Programs senior citizens depend on and even eliminated Medicare Advantage--one of the most popular Medicare programs.  There were rumblings at the time that the end of Medicare Advantage would mean greater enrollment in the AARP's supplemental insurance programs, but no numbers were actually given.  Well, that has changed.

Hot Air posted a story yesterday that the AARP will make about $1 billion from the implementation of Obamacare. 

The article details some of the findings in a Republican report recently released:

"# Since 2002, income generated from AARP membership dues has increased 32%, or $60 million. However, during this same period, income derived from AARP's business relationships, primarily with insurance companies, has nearly tripled, increasing by $417 million. Royalty payments from for-profit companies comprised nearly 46% of AARP's revenue in 2009, while membership dues totaled just 17% of total revenues.

"# As a result of the new health care law, the Obama Administration estimates more than 7 million seniors will lose their current Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in a massive migration of seniors to Medigap plans. AARP is the nation's leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee.

"# Based on low, mid and high-range estimates, AARP stands to financially gain, over and above the millions of dollars they currently receive from United, between $55 million and $166 million in 2014 alone as a result of new Medigap enrollees stemming from the health care law's cuts to MA, which AARP strongly endorsed.

"# Under the midrange estimate and under their current contract, AARP's financial gain from the health care law could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of MA plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead."

The Republicans are asking that the IRS investigate the AARP's tax exempt status.  The article notes that the AARP has become a for-profit entity and is no longer entitled to tax-exempt status.

Yesterday the UK Telegraph posted a story about the trial of Geert Wilders.  A judge has refused to dismiss the case against Mr. Wilders.  Mr. Wilders is facing trial on charges of incited hatred and discriminations against Muslims. 

The article reports:

"But reading out the ruling on Wednesday, presiding judge Marcel van Oosten said the case would go ahead. He rejected most of the defence's objections such as its questioning of the court's authority to hear the case in the first place and of the way that the prosecutors had pursued the trial.

"However, judges did agree with the defence that part of the indictment against Mr Wilders should be dropped. In it he allegedly refers to the Koran as "fascist" and said it should be banned.

"The judges said that in including the quotes in the indictment prosecutors were going beyond the brief set out by the Amsterdam appeals court."

This is a dangerous case.  One aspect of Sharia Law is that any criticism of Islam is illegal.  Criticism of Islam can result in very harsh penalties.  To condemn this man because he has spoken out against the extreme control radical Islam has over those who practice it is a step toward endorsing Sharia Law and will negatively impact the right of all of us to be honest about what we believe.

Today's Washington Examiner reported on a speech given at Georgetown University by President Obama on America's energy policy.  The President wants to set a goal of reducing America's oil imports by one third by 2025.  The obvious answer here is--Drill, Baby, Drill, but somehow I doubt that is what he has in mind.

The article reports:

"The president acknowledged that there is little he can do to bring down the cost, since oil is priced globally and increased demand from China and other developing nations continues to push prices up.  A longer-term energy strategy, he said, would depend not only on increasing domestic oil production, but also on boosting the use of other energy sources, including natural gas and biofuels.

""We have to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy," Obama said.  "And we have to do it quickly.""

As reported in rightwinggranny.com on March 14, the majority of imported oil in the United States is used in the transportation industry.  Even electric cars need something to generate their electricity, and biofuel (ethanol) has been a total disaster for food prices and fuel economy.  The solution to American dependence on foreign oil is to develop our own resources (not give money to Brazil to develop theirs).

Meanwhile, the Houston Chronicle reported yesterday that House Republicans on Tuesday unveiled a suite of bills that aim to expand offshore drilling by forcing the Obama administration to vet proposed exploration quickly and sell more oil and gas leases along the East Coast.

The article reports:

"Since Feb. 28, the government has approved six of the 57 deep-water drilling projects that were permitted before that ban was imposed.

"A second bill would force the administration to conduct previously planned oil and natural gas lease sales in the Gulf and offshore Virginia that were delayed or canceled after last year's spill. For instance, it would require two Gulf lease sales that were to take place this year but may be pushed to 2012 while the government completes an environmental study.

"A third measure would force the government to sell leases in the nation's most energy-rich offshore areas, chiefly along parts of the Atlantic coast and Arctic waters near Alaska."

If actions speak louder than words, who is looking out for America's energy needs?

There has never been any doubt that the American tax laws are the result of the lobbying efforts of special interest groups.  If you need proof of that, find out what some people who make millions pay in income taxes versus those of us in the middle class.  I am not supporting soaking the rich, I am just asking for a tax system that does not grant special privileges to anyone.  However, some of the obvious inequities in our system make me wonder.

The Hill's Blog Briefing Room reported today that former Senator Russ Feingold has called for the resignation of General Electric CEO Jeffrey Immelt from President Obama's jobs council. Why?  Because last year GE reported a $14.2 billion profit and paid no income taxes.

On March 28, the Wall Street Journal reported:

""We expect to have a positive tax liability for 2010 when we file our U.S. income taxes later this year," the conglomerate said in a written response to questions from Dow Jones Newswires. But "we think it will be covered by overpayments.""

"...GE called the Times report "particularly distorted and misleading" on its website Friday. On Monday, GE noted on its website that it paid almost $2.7 billion in "cash income taxes" globally in 2010, "including significant U.S. federal income tax payments."

"GE also has said that its tax rate has been abnormally low recently largely because of losses suffered by its financial arm, GE Capital, during the financial crisis. The company noted that GE Capital lost nearly $32 billion from 2008 to 2010.

""Our 2011 tax rate is slated to return to more normal levels with GE Capital's recovery," the company said."

Frankly I believe that the American corporate tax rate should be lower, but I also believe that American corporations should be paying taxes to America on their profits. 

The Hill quotes Russ Feingold:

""How can someone like Immelt be given the responsibility of heading a jobs creation task force when his company has been creating more jobs overseas while reducing its American workforce?" Feingold asked. "And under Immelt's direction, GE spends hundreds of millions of dollars hiring lawyers and lobbyists to evade taxes.""

I never thought I would find myself agreeing with Russ Feingold, but I think he is right on this one.  I am firmly convinced that there are some serious conflicts of interest involved in this appointment.

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air today that told a story about Planned Parenthood that has somehow gotten lost in the budget debate.  One of the issues in the current budget debate is the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  During this debate the CEO of Planned Parenthood stated, "millions of women are going to lose their health-care access, not to abortion services, but to basic family planning, you know, mammograms."   A blog called live action decided to test that argument.  They attempted to schedule a mammogram at a Planned Parenthood clinic before the funds were cut.  They were told that Planned Parenthood doesn't do mammograms. 

According to the article:

"In fact, one center told the caller that "we don't deal with the health side of it so much.  We're mostly a surgical center":"

The article also reports:

"And when Planned Parenthood tells people that their mission focuses on women's health, one of their former directors begs to differ. Abby Johnson left the nation's largest provider of abortions in 2009 after being pressured to increase the number of abortions at her Bryan, TX clinic, and after watching an ultrasound-guided abortion that convinced her to oppose abortion and work to actually improve women's health. The Susan B Anthony List pro-life organization has produced this one-minute television ad that features Johnson explaining the actual profit motive at PP, and it's not condom sales:"

Please follow the above link to Hot Air to see the video.  I think it has become very obvious that the taxpayer money that goes to Planned Parenthood is funding abortion.  If Planned Parenthood wants to do abortions, we probably can't stop them--abortion is legal and the abortion industry is extremely profitable under current rules.  However, the American taxpayer should not have to fund the abortion industry directly or indirectly by funding Planned Parenthood.

Power Line posted a story yesterday on the overheard Democrat talking points voiced by Senator Chuck Schumer.  The story goes that the Senator was briefing the Democrats on how to handle the budget negotiations and did not realize reporters were also on the line.  The article reports:

"Mr. Schumer told them to portray John Boehner of Ohio, the Speaker of the House, as painted into a box by the Tea Party, and to decry the spending cuts that he wants as extreme. "I always use the word extreme," Mr. Schumer said, "That is what the caucus instructed me to use this week.""

Note to Senator Schumer--this is not a game--this is the future of America.  The thing to remember here is that when the Democrats held the majorities in the House and Senate and the Presidency, they were unwilling to pass a budget for 2011.  Why?  Because they would rather play politics than get anything done.  It really is time to send these people packing--they need to be unelected and sent home!

The really comical part of this story is that they used their revealed talking points after they got caught.  Our media is not reminding you why there is no budget, and the Democrats would rather have the political advantage they believe they will get from a shutdown.  This is not good for the country, and the people doing this do not have the good of our country in mind.  This is not a game--it is our future.

I am posting this word for word from Michael Yon's website.  It is his rebuttal to a very misleading Rolling Stone article.  Please read it carefully.  The picture being painted by Rolling Stone is not an accurate picture.  This was posted today.

Seldom do I waste time with rebutting articles, and especially not from publications like Rolling Stone.  Today, numerous people sent links to the latest Rolling Stone tripe.  The story is titled "THE KILL TEAM, THE FULL STORY."  It should be titled: "BULLSHIT, from Rolling Stone."

The story--not really an "article"--covers Soldiers from 5/2 Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT) in Afghanistan.  A handful of Soldiers were accused of murder.  It does in fact appear that a tiny group of rogues committed premeditated murder.  I was embedded with the 5/2 SBCT and was afforded incredible access to the brigade by the Commander, Colonel Harry Tunnell, and the brigade Command Sergeant Major, Robb Prosser.  I know Robb from Iraq.  Colonel Tunnell had been shot in Iraq.

The brigade gave me open access.  I could go anywhere, anytime, so long as I could find a ride, which never was a problem beyond normal combat problems.  If they had something to hide, it was limited and I didn't find it.  I was not with the Soldiers accused of murder and had no knowledge of this.  It is important to note that the murder allegations were not discovered by media vigilance, but by, for instance, at least one Soldier in that tiny unit who was appalled by the behavior.  A brigade is a big place with thousands of Soldiers, and in Afghanistan they were spread thinly across several provinces because we decided to wage war with too few troops.  Those Soldiers accused of being involved in (or who should have been knowledgeable of) the murders could fit into a minivan.  You would need ten 747s for the rest of the Brigade who did their duty.  I was with many other Soldiers from 5/2 SBCT.  My overall impression was very positive.  After scratching my memory for negative impressions from 5/2 Soldiers, I can't think of any, actually, other than the tiny Kill Team who, to my knowledge, I never set eyes upon.

The online edition of the Rolling Stone story contains a section with a video called "Motorcycle Kill," which includes our Soldiers gunning down Taliban who were speeding on a motorcycle toward our guys.  These Soldiers were also with 5/2 SBCT, far away from the "Kill Team" later accused of the murders.  Rolling Stone commits a literary "crime" by deceptively entwining this normal combat video with the Kill Team story.  The Taliban on the motorcycle were killed during an intense operation in the Arghandab near Kandahar City.  People who have been to the Arghandab realize the extreme danger there.  The Soviets got beaten horribly in the Arghandab, despite throwing everything including the Soviet kitchen sink into the battle that lasted over a month.  Others fared little better.  To my knowledge, 5/2 and supporting units were the first ever to take Arghandab, and these two dead Taliban were part of that process.

The killing of the armed Taliban on the motorcycle was legal and within the rules of engagement.  Law and ROE are related but separate matters.  In any case, the killing was well within both the law and ROE.  The Taliban on the back of the motorcycle raised his rifle to fire at our Soldiers but the rifle did not fire.  I talked at length with several of the Soldiers who were there and they gave me the video.  There was nothing to hide.  I didn't even know about the story until they told me.  It can be good for Soldiers to shoot and share videos because it provides instant replay and lessons learned.  When they gave me the video and further explained what happened, I found the combat so normal that I didn't even bother publishing it, though I should have because that little shooting of the two Taliban was the least of the accomplishments of these Soldiers, and it rid the Arghandab of two Taliban.

Some people commented that our Soldiers used excessive force by firing too many bullets.  Hogwash.  And besides, they were trying to kill each other.  Anyone who has seen much combat with our weak M-4 rifles realizes that one shot is generally not enough, and the Taliban were speeding at them on a motorbike, which very often are prepared as suicide bombs.  If that motorcycle had been a bomb, as they often are, and got inside the group of Soldiers and exploded, they could all have been killed.  Just yesterday, in Paktika, three suicide attackers came in, guns blazing, and detonated a huge truck bomb.  Depending on which reports you read, about twenty workers were killed and about another fifty wounded.

In the video, our guys would have been justified in firing twice that many bullets, but at some point you are wasting ammo and that is a combat sin.  The Soldiers involved in that shooting told me that the Taliban on the back may have pulled the AK trigger, but the loaded AK did not fire because the Taliban didn't have a round in the chamber.  Attention to detail.  At least one also had an ammunition rack strapped across his chest.

This could go on for pages, but Rolling Stone is not worth it, and thrashing them might only build their readership.  I've found in the past that boycotts work.  I led a boycott against one magazine and it went bankrupt.  It's doubtful that Rolling Stone will go bankrupt for its sins, but you can cost them money not by boycotting their magazine, but by boycotting their advertisers.  That hurts.  Just pick an advertiser whose products you already buy, boycott it, and tell the advertiser why you are not buying their product.

Now I've got to get back to work.

Thank you, Michael, for clarity in the fog of war.

This isn't funny, but it is ironic.  Fox News is reporting that NATO may delay its takeover of the kinetic military action in Libya because Susan Rice, America's Ambassador to the United Naitons, says that the Obama Administration has not ruled out arming the rebels in their fight against Moammar Gadhafi.  

Ms. Rice appeared on ABC's Good Morning, America and stated that our primary purpose was to protect civilians and establish a no-fly zone, but that we have not ruled out arming the rebels.

This discussion comes at a rather inconvenient time--Yahoo News is currently reporting that the rebels have been driven back from Moammar Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte. 

Yahoo News reports:

"In a scene reminiscent of the rebels' rout last week, panicked volunteers jumped into their pickup trucks and attempted to speed away from the bombardment, kicking up dust clouds and choking the narrow coastal highway in a mad scramble of vehicles.

"Sirte is dominated by members of the Libyan leader's Gadhadhfa tribe and was used as a second capital by Gadhafi. Its loss would be a symbolic blow and open the way to the capital Tripoli."

It is rather obvious that this is not going to be a three-day war.  We need to make up our minds now how much we are willing to invest in Libya.  This is not an auction where you are spurred on by other bidders--it is a war where people's lives are at stake.  We need either to bomb the government forces into submission or get out.  Any other course of action will kill more innocent people. 

The American Thinker posted an article today linking to an Atlanta Journal Constitution article entitled, "Who Wins With Higher Gas Prices?"  Dan Chapman, who wrote the article, cites statistical proof that high gas prices result in better public health.

The American Thinker cites part of the article:

"Other health benefits accrue to higher gas prices. Charles Courtemanche, an economics professor at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, recently published a study showing that a sustained $1 increase in the price of a gallon of gas results in a 10 percent drop in the nation's obesity rate.

"Americans who walk and bike more often and eat at restaurants less often will suffer fewer obesity-related diseases. Every $1 uptick in gas prices saves 11,000 lives and $11 billion in health-care costs annually. [Emphasis mine]"

American Thinker points out what happens when you follow this logic to its obvious conclusion:

"In other words, if gas prices increase by $40 per gallon, we can virtually eliminate obesity in America (do the math). But even better, if we raise the price per gallon by $27,275.00, we can save the lives of every American, presumably in perpetuity, and erase the national debt."

We'd better be careful and not give the environmentalists any wild ideas!  There are a few things Dan Chapman leaves out--what increased gasoline prices do to the price of food, making it more difficult for lower income families to buy healthy food, people who work 30 or 40 miles from home in an area that does not have public transportation, and the crippling effect increased fuel costs have on the economy.  This is truly a really dumb statistical conclusion. 

This is going to be one of those rambling articles with no link, so if that's not your cup of tea, you have my permission to stop reading now!

I think our current problem with dealing with tyrannical dictators has its roots in the trauma civilized nations suffered during World War II.   World War I was to be "The War That Ended All Wars."  The treaty at Versailles was such that a militant Germany would never be able to rise again (we saw how well that worked).  In World War II, we were a little less naïve.  I believe that there were three events during World War II that truly scarred the psyche of civilized nations--the firebombing of Dresden, the pictures from the Concentration Camps, and the use of the atomic bomb.  These three things showed civilized nations the horror of war in no uncertain terms.  America fought the Korean Conflict with one hand tied behind its back--although we were fighting an enemy that did not have atomic weapons, rather than end the war abruptly with an atomic weapon, we fought a grinding ground war which probably cost many more lives than an atomic bomb would have.  In Viet Nam we were afraid to fight with all our might for fear of having the Russians or the Chinese get involved--they were involved, but we still held back. 

I have very mixed emotions about our involvement in Libya.  I remember Viet Nam.  All the young men in my high school class had to choose--if they didn't go to college, they went to Viet Nam.   Initially we went as advisors under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy, but that was not where things went. 

We are providing air cover for rebel troops in Libya.  I am told by military people I know that the only way to provide close air cover is to have boots on the ground to tell the airplanes where to drop their bombs.  Otherwise you have civilian casualties which will be used for propaganda purposes.  Unfortunately Arab dictators are much more skilled at the propaganda war than America is.

In 1991 we put together a coalition and drove Iraq out of Kuwait.  We didn't go all the way to Baghdad because the coalition would not support that move.  We paid a high price for that.  It was impressive to end the war in 100 days and still have a coalition, but the lessons of history proved us wrong.  I fear we are about to do the same thing in Libya.  We need to be all in or all out.

We have acquired the veneer of civilization--we oppose the killing of innocents, but not with all of our strength.  We oppose totalitarian dictators, but we are not necessarily aware of the credentials of the people we help overthrow them.  We have put on the veneer of civilization at the expense of actually doing the civilized thing.  You don't put a band aid on cancer--you operate and remove it.  You do chemotherapy if necessary--even though it is a miserable process.

My final conclusion here is that we are ignoring the source of the problem.  Iran is a sponsor of world-wide terrorism.  Iran funds terrorist organizations and the governments that support them.  Until we deal with Iran, we are going to find ourselves fighting the tentacles rather than fighting the octopus.

On Saturday Bill Bennett and Seth Leibsohn posted an article at CNN's Opinion Page.  The article was entitled, "Don't Overstate Anti-Muslim Bias." 

The article reports that two weeks after the House Homeland Security Committee held hearings on the radicalization of Muslims in America, Dick Durbin has announced that he will be holding related hearings in the Senate.  However, the hearings in the Senate will focus on anti-Muslim bigotry in the United States.

The article reports:

"Senator Durbin has said anti-Islamic sentiment in America is on the rise and that, "It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights." The hearing, scheduled for next week, follows a CNN special to air this Sunday, "Unwelcome: The Muslims Next Door.""

In 2009 (the most recent year statistics are available) there were 931 acts of bias against Jews and 107 against Muslims.  Based on those numbers, it doesn't seem as if Muslims are the ones having the problem with bias. 

The article states:

"Still, an uncomfortable fact remains, but it is not about bigotry. Despite the full and equal rights Muslims are and should be entitled to in America, we face a problem that too few are willing to speak about: Radical Muslims have declared war on America, from within and without, and that threat is on the rise. This uncomfortable fact has put many Americans on the defensive. But most of those on the defensive are those who recite this fact, not those who avoid it.

"We predict that when all is said and done by the end of next week, Peter King, who held hearings on radicalization in the Muslim community, will have been subject to far more scrutiny and negative publicity than Dick Durbin.

"But King was right to raise his issue; his opponents are the ones grandstanding."

Considering the numbers from 2009, isn't holding the hearings on anti-Muslim bias instead of anti-Jewish bias a form of bias?

Who gets the oil in Libya?  This is a chart from Stratfor.com (Stratfor Global Intelligence) showing where the oil is in Libya and who gets it.  This is the reason NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was so willing to get involved and take the lead in the operation in Librya--they were protecting their oil supply.  There is nothing wrong with that, I just think it would have been nice if the major media had bothered to report it.  In helping Europe insure its continuing supply of oil, we are also protecting ourselves from sudden price hikes in the cost of oil.  To help the rebels in the war in Libya is in our best interest--it is good that civilians are being protected, but we are protecting our own interests as well.  The downside of the war in Libya is that we have no guarantees that whoever comes into power will be friendly to America.  Some of the rebels have ties to organizations that are sworn enemies of America; there are no guarantees that those people will not be in charge when the smoke clears.

This may in fact be war for oil.  There is nothing wrong with that, I would just appreciate a little more honesty.

CBN News posted an article today about a video produced by the Iranian government stating that the current Middle East chaos is evidence the the Mahdi (the Twelfth Imam) is about to appear. 

The article reports:

"It's called The Coming is Near and it describes current events in the Middle East as a prelude to the arrival of the mythical tweflth Imam or Mahdi -- the messiah figure who Islamic scriptures say will lead the armies of Islam to victory over all non-Muslims in the last days.

""This video has been produced by a group called the Conductors of the Coming, in connection with the Basiji -- the Iranian paramilitary force, and in collaboration with the Iranian president's office," said Reza Kahlil, a former member of Iran's Revolutionary Guards who shared the video with CBN News."

The belief that chaos in the world will usher in the appearance of the Mahdi is one of the beliefs of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  The video claims that Iran will rise to be one of the leaders in the new Muslim world--a world in which Christians, Jews, and other non-believers are either killed or conquered.  The video says that the Imam will rule the world from Iraq. 

The article concludes:

""I think it's a very grave development," Mideast expert Joel Rosenberg, author of The Twelfth Imam, told CBN News, "because it gives you a window into the thinking of the Iranian leadership: that they believe the time for war with Israel may be even sooner than others had imagined."

"Kahlili says The Coming is Near will soon be distributed by the Iranian regime throughout the Middle East.  He explained their goal to instigate further uprisings in Arab countries."

I know that there are peaceful Muslims, but make no mistake, they will be forced into silence as the militant Muslims gain increased power.  This video is designed to create chaos.  This video is the face of the enemies of western civilization.

This is the link to watch the video at Reza Kahlil's website.

The UK Telegraph posted an article on Friday about Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi, the Libyan rebel leader.  Mr. al-Hasidi has stated that jihadists who fought against allied troops in Iraq are on the front lines of the battle against Muammar Gaddafi's regime.

The article reports:

"Mr al-Hasidi insisted his fighters "are patriots and good Muslims, not terrorists," but added that the "members of al-Qaeda are also good Muslims and are fighting against the invader"."

I don't mean to be difficult here, but NATO and the US were asked to come to the aid of the rebels in Libya.  We were essentially dragged in kicking and screaming.  We are not invaders.  Why were we considered 'invaders' in Iraq and Afghanistan and yet asked to get involved in Libya?

The article further points out:

"Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan". He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

"US and British government sources said Mr al-Hasidi was a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, or LIFG, which killed dozens of Libyan troops in guerrilla attacks around Derna and Benghazi in 1995 and 1996."

"Even though the LIFG is not part of the al-Qaeda organisation, the United States military's West Point academy has said the two share an "increasingly co-operative relationship". In 2007, documents captured by allied forces from the town of Sinjar, showed LIFG emmbers made up the second-largest cohort of foreign fighters in Iraq, after Saudi Arabia.

"Earlier this month, al-Qaeda issued a call for supporters to back the Libyan rebellion, which it said would lead to the imposition of "the stage of Islam" in the country."

I understand that there are humanitarian reasons for intervening in Libya right now.  What I am concerned about is the sort of government Libya will have when the dust clears.  Will we replace a secular tyrant with an Islamic tyrant?  Why would that be considered an improvement?

On Friday, the Orlando Sentinel posted an article stating that the Florida House passed a bill that will ban automatic deduction of union dues from a government paycheck and will require that union members sign off on the use of their dues for political purposes.

The bill makes perfect sense to me--the unions need to be responsible for collecting their own dues and the unions need to respect the wishes of their members in making political donations.  The article points out that Florida is a 'right to work' state, which means that workers are not required to join a union. 

The article reports:

"The Senate version of the bill, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine, has one more committee stop before it makes it to the floor."

The bill allows union members to have more control of how their union dues are spent.  That's a good thing.  Union leaders need to be held accountable as to how they handle union members' money.

The Drudge Report posted a story on an incident at a fund raiser for Vice-President Biden held Wednesday in Florida.  It was a $500-a-person gathering in Winter Park, Florida, and Scott Powers of the Orlanda Sentinel was the 'pool reporter' covering the event. 

The reporter was put in a storage closet during the event.  He was allowed out of the closet to hear 35 minutes of remarks by Vice-President Biden and then returned to the closet for the remainder of the event. 

The article reports:

"Powers didn't mention his confinement in either of his pool reports that day, saying only that "press coverage was limited to a single pool reporter, filing on behalf of all local media, who was allowed to listen to the remarks but not given an opportunity to talk with anyone at the event.""

Freedom of the press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy.  This is not freedom of the press.  Mr. Powers was a pool reporter assigned to cover the event for the press.  The fact that he was not given access to the guests at the fundraiser raises questions as to exactly who was there and what were the subjects of discussion.  It seems to me that placing someone in a closet and keeping guard at the door is not normal political activity and should be looked into.  I suspect Mr. Powers will not file a complaint because filing a complaint would severely limit his access to the President and Vice-President in the future; however, reporting from the closet doesn't seem to be great access to begin with.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:  This story is now posted online at the UK Daily Mail and the Daily Caller.

Fox Business reported yesterday on the amount of money paid out by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 signed on December 8, 2010.  This bill, H. R. 4783, is also sometimes referred to as "The Pigford Settlement." 

One aspect of the bill is to pay black farmers who had been discriminated against by the USDA in loan applications during the 1980's and 1990's.  The numbers, however, just don't add up.  The article reports:

"When some black farmers sued, claiming discrimination, the USDA agreed to pay $50,000 to every black person who was discriminated against.

"According to the census, there were 18,000 black farmers in the country when the lawsuit was filed.  But 97,000 black 'farmers" have applied for the money.

"Black farmer Jimmy Dismuke says its fraud.  He said lawyers went to black churches and told people who had never farmed to file for the money.

""People say well, how do I qualify?" Dismuke told us.  "And then [the lawyers] started talking about potted plants.  They said if you had a potted plant, you can be a farmer.  And if you have a yard and you fertilize it, you're a farmer."

"Just about anyone can say that they "attempted to farm."  And the USDA--which did not keep all its loan records--has no way to refute that.  So the taxpayers pay, and pay."

At a time when the federal budget is totally out of control, we cannot afford to be handing out $50,000 payments to people who have never farmed anything larger than their back yard.  Please read the entire article to see how this supposedly well meaning program has spiraled totally out of control. 

Sometimes I am not as well informed about political events as I should be.  The fact that community meetings are being held on the Secure Communities strategy was total news to me.  Hopefully, there are many people more informed on this than I was.

The Main Street Journal is a online Massachusetts newspaper specializing in local news.  It posted an article on Friday about a Secure Communities forum that will take place at Lawrence High School on Saturday, April 2nd from 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM.  The article describes Secure Communities as "the Department of Homeland Security's comprehensive strategy to improve the identification and removal of criminal aliens from the United States."

The article reports:

"Governor Deval Patrick announced earlier this month that a series of community meetings would be held to promote an open dialogue on the subject. However, Tea Party activists who attended a recent hearing held in Framingham have charged the forums have been rigged to produce a pre-determined outcome, specifically to leave the impression that Massachusetts residents are opposed to the initiative.

"The panel at the Framingham event was one-sided and included only those who opposed the program. Panelists were allowed extensive latitude to speak and control the forum while members of the audience were allowed only one minute to speak each."

"Ralph Belmore, co-chair of the Marlborough Tea Party said he believes the public is largely unaware of the Secure Communities program and the series of public hearings scheduled by the governor's office. On the other hand, illegal immigrant advocacy groups appear to be well aware and are playing a key role in the hearings. "We want the governor to take action," said Belmore who believes most Massachusetts residents would back the plan if they knew about it."

Michelle Malkin posted an article at Townhall.com about New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner's request for an Obamacare waiver for New York City. 

The article reports:

"Weiner joins a bevy of the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act's" loudest cheerleaders -- unions, foundations and left-leaning corporations -- in clamoring for more waivers for favors. (The list of federal waiver recipients now tops 1,000, covering more than 2.6 million workers.) And he follows a gaggle of health care takeover-promoting Democrats maneuvering on Capitol Hill for get-out-of-Obamacare loopholes."

The article further reports:

"Echoing all the Republican critics of Obamacare who objected to top-down rules that override local variations in health care expenditures, Weiner explained: "I'm just looking internally to whether the city can save money and have more control over its own destiny." " 

The article points out that repeal would be the ultimate waiver (not to mention the most necessary one).

CBS News in St. Louis reported yesterday that the city of Hazelwood, Missouri, has gotten tough with some serious lawbreakers--girl scouts selling cookies in a stand they set up in front of their house.  The city spokesman, Tim Davidson, said it is against the city code to sell products from home. 

The article points out:

"And while he has heard some complaints from residents that Hazelwood is being too harsh on the teens, Davidson says others have pointed out that one tenet of the Girl Scouts is good citizenship.

""The fact that we did have this code in place, it's the responsibility of every good citizen to respect the laws that we have," said Davidson."

I wonder what the crime rate is in Hazelwood, Missouri.  I wonder how much time was wasted on the Girl Scout Cookie Caper that might have been better used elsewhere.

The problem was solved when Reverend George Hutchings bought the remaining boxes, took some, and told the girls to give the rest to the neighbors.  That was a very generous thing to do, but I think the Girl Scouts need to get involved in local government with their parents and learn how to change a law. 

If the most disobedient thing these girl scouts ever do is sell cookies on their front lawn, their parents should be proud!

On Tuesday the Washington Times' Inside Politics Blog posted a short piece stating that Senator Richard Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, is planning to hold hearings to examine Muslims' civil rights.  The Democrats are holding these hearings in response to the hearings held in the House of Representatives earlier this month by Representative Peter King of New York dealing with the radicalization of American Muslims.

The article reports:

""Our Constitution protects the free exercise of religion for all Americans," Mr. Durbin said.  "During the course of our history, many religions have faced intolerance. It is important for our generation to renew our founding charter's commitment to religious diversity and to protect the liberties guaranteed by our Bill of Rights."

"The hearing will be the first ever before the Judiciary Committee's new subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights and human rights, which Democrats created this year. Mr. Durbin is the chairman of the subcommittee."

My first question at this point is, "What is the purpose of this new subcommittee?"  Why did we need a new subcommittee?  Don't we have courts that handle this sort of thing?  But even if there is a real need for a new subcommittee, why have they chosen to investigate the civil rights of Muslims? 

The article reports:

"In 2009, the latest FBi statistics available, anti-Islamic hate crimes accounted for 9.3 percent of the 1,376 religiously motivated hate crimes recorded. That's far less than the 70.1 percent that were anti-Jewish."

Where is the investigation of the Jewish civil rights that were violated?  Do Muslim civil rights include the use of Sharia Law in American courts?  If so, how does that impact the civil rights of women and Americans of other faiths (Sharia Law outlaws any religion other than Islam and severely limits the rights and freedom of women)?  Why is the subcommittee investigating less than 10 percent of hate crimes instead of investigating 90 percent?  Is that discrimination?

Which is more of a threat to America, radicalization of Muslim Americans or hate crimes against Muslims?  Where should Congress be focusing its attention?

Just asking.

CNS News reported today:

"Last Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted a motion by The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) to fast-track an appeal of a decision by a federal district court in February that dismissed its lawsuit against Obamacare."

The ACLJ argued that Congress does not have the Constitutional power to require Americans to buy health insurance. 

The article reported:

"In an interview with CNSNews.com, ACLJ Senior Counsel Ed White explained that Thursday's ruling allowing for an expedited appeal of Kessler's ruling will ensure that the Supreme Court will hear the case before Obamacare is completely implemented."

The ACLJ is also opposing Obamacare because they claim it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.  The article points out:

"White also pointed out that even if the Supreme Court finds Obamacare to be unconstitutional, people of certain faiths would still have a separate lawsuit on religious grounds against the law.

""For example with our clients who are faith healers, they don't believe that they need to go to a doctor," said White. "They don't believe they need health insurance because whatever happens to them, they rely on God. One of the clients, even if he has a heart attack, his wife is under instructions not to call 911 but to pray. If God wants him to survive that heart attack that's the way it's going to be.

""For someone like him, he's going to have to spend hundreds of dollars -- if not thousands --every year for the rest of his life to buy health insurance which he doesn't need. He now is being penalized by the government hundreds -- if not thousands -- of dollars by the government simply because he is exercising his religious faith.""

The thing to keep in mind about Obamacare is that it starts collecting money now, but does not seriously get into providing benefits and controlling healthcare services until after the 2012 elections (we all know that fact is an incredible coincidence!).  It needs to be stopped as quickly as possible before it can become entrenched into American healthcare.  Obamacare will impact the number of new hospitals and new doctors in a negative way.  That is one of many reasons why it needs to be stopped quickly.

On Tuesday, the Daily Pilot reported that the Newport Beach city council has passed a resolution to ban leaf blowers.  The council voted 4 to 3 to force groundskeepers to use quieter methods of collecting leaves and debris.

If Newport Beach wants to ban leaf blowers, that is their privilege, but haven't they got better things to do?  California is in serious economic difficulty and these people are worrying about leaf blowers.  The law does give homeowners associations the ability to opt out of the ban.  Wow.

Good grief.

An organization called True the Vote investigated voter fraud in Houston, Texas, last year and came up with some unsettling conclusions.  According to rightwinggranny.com in September 2010:

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

The group will be holding a summit on line tomorrow.  Please follow the link to True the vote for more information.  Our democracy depends on the integrity of the voting process.

This chart is from the website of Representative John Fleming of Louisiana.  It explains why spending cuts are necessary and need to happen as soon as possible.  Follow this link for a bigger version of the chart.  Would you run your household budget this way?

I consider myself an average American.  I am a middle class person who has been through the basic ups and downs that all of us go through in a lifetime.  I remember 30-cents-a-gallon gasoline and gas lines during the 1970's.  I remember price and wage controls and WIN (whip inflation now) and I remember wondering how many people the money taken out of my or my husband's paycheck was supporting, since I never got to spend it.  I have noticed that there seem to be some people in this country that are very rich, but my experience when I have met some of these people was that they were very well educated or very hard working and most had made serious personal sacrifices to obtain their wealth.  I suppose that is a very naive view, but I really think most rich people who have honestly earned their money have worked very hard for it.  I see no reason to hold their success against them or to penalize them in some way by higher taxes or trying to limit the amount of money they can make. 

With the above philosophy in mind, I am very troubled by a tape of a speech by former SEIU executive Stephen Lerner from last weekend.  On Tuesday, the Business Insider posted an aritlce about Mr. Lerner's plan to "destabilize" the country.   Speaking at a closed forum at Pace University in New York last weekend, Mr. Lerner outlined a plan to destroy JP Morgan, nuke the stock market and weaken Wall Street's grip on power, thus creating the conditions necessary for a redistribution of wealth and a change in government.

I have a better idea--why not go out and earn your own money instead of trying to take away other people's?  The link above has posted the whole transcript of Mr. Lerner's speech.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air also posted an article on Tuesday about Mr. Lerner's remarks.  Mr. Morrissey concludes:

"I don't think that anyone doubts that labor in this country has become poisonously hostile to private enterprise, thanks in large part to its inability to organize workers outside of the public sector.  Its leaders surely share Lerner's hostility to so-called "fat-cat bankers", Wall Street executives, and anyone in general that makes a profit off of their hard work, ingenuity, and investment.  But the final questioner in the longer video inadvertently makes the case that unions have just as much invested in the current system as everyone else, thanks to their pension fund investments, and stand to lose just as much if not more than most if the system collapses, whether organically or from a "poor people's movement" attack.  That's why Lerner doesn't have access to those big bucks any longer, and why Labor Nihilist Club is going to fall short of its Fight Club fantasies."

Have we reached the point in America where we don't know how to play nicely together?

Elizabeth Taylor died today at the age of 79.  She was part of a Hollywood era that engaged in scandalous behavior but somehow managed to appear glamorous rather than trashy.  Even as she aged, the pictures of her showed her with her hair combed, her make-up skillfully applied and still carrying herself with the glamour that she was known for. 

A fairly complete article about her career can be found in today's U K Mail Online.  An article about her in today's Washington Examiner states:

"In death, she is being heralded for her great beauty, iconic and legandary persona, tireless humanitarian work, and the compassion and optimism she exuded despite decades of physical ailments."

Elizabeth Taylor personified the glamour and success of the movie industry at its most successful.  She began as a child star and somehow transitioned to adult roles without an awkward period.  She is a lady who will be sorely missed.

There is an amazing editorial posted at ArabNews.com today.  I strongly suggest you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will attempt to summarize it.

The writer is ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM.  He asks the question:

"I have seen and read about the lives of the Palestinians in the US and other places. They are very successful in every field. And at the same time I saw the Arab countries at the bottom of the list in education and development. And I always ask the question: What if the Palestinians and the Arabs accepted the presence of Israel on May 14, 1948 and recognized its right to exist? Would the Arab world have been more stable, more democratic and more advanced?"

He rightfully points out that many of the Arab leaders used the Palestinians for their own purposes with no regard for the Palestinians themselves.  He points out that Arab leaders have historically used the cry to drive Israel into the sea to unite their people and consolidate their own power.  This prevented them from having to focus on solving any internal problems they might have had within their own countries.

The article points out:

"If Israel was recognized in 1948, then there would have been no need for a coup in Egypt against King Farouq in 1952 and there would have been no attack on Egypt in 1956 by The UK, France and Israel. Also there will be no war in June 1967 and the size of Israel will not be increased and we, the Arabs would not have the need for a UN resolution to beg Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders. And no war of attrition between Egypt and Israel that caused more casualties on the Egyptian side than the Israeli side."

The article cites further examples:

"Even a non-Arab country (Iran) used Palestine to divert the minds of their people from internal unrest. I remember Ayatollah Khomeini declaring that he would liberate Jerusalem via Baghdad and President Ahmadinejad making bellicose statements about Israel, though not even a single fire cracker was fired from Iran toward Israel."

Regardless of how you feel about this article, I think the point can be made that solving the problems in your own country is better than scapegoating another country to unite your people.  Peaceful countries have a better chance for stability, prosperity, and better standards of living for their people.  The irony of the situation in the Middle East is that Israel is the country in which Arabs generally have the best living conditions in the Middle East.

Israel has never been a threat to her neighbors.  She has responded to attacks and planned attacks, but she has made it clear that her goal is to live at peace with her neighbors.  It has been said, "If the Arabs put down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East.  If Israel put down their weapons, there would be no Israel."  I believe that is true.

Today, YNet News reported that Turkey forced an Iranian cargo plane to land in Turkey and discovered several crates of weapons and ammunition headed for Syria. 

The article reports:

"Turkish media reported that the plane was forced to land in a military airfield at the United Nations' request following information indicating it was carrying nuclear materials. It was further reported that rocket launchers, mortars, rifles and explosive materials were found in one of the main cabinets on the plane."

On March 15th as reported at Power Line, the Israelis intercepted a shipload of weapons manufactured in Iran, shipped through Syria and bound for Gaza.  It seems as if the enemies of Israel are arming.  This is not a good thing for peace in the Middle East.

Investors.com posted an article yesterday entitled, "Drill, Brazil, Drill!"  The opening sentence:

"While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we'll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?"

What you just read is true.  President Obama does not want to alienate the environmental extremists in this country who oppose the development of our own energy resources, but American environmentalists have no problem with Americans paying $10 a gallon for gasoline imported from Brazil.  At this point I would like to make clear that I do not oppose environmentalism--I just believe it has to be balanced with practicality. 

The article reports:

"We have noted this double standard before, particularly when -- at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies -- we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank's plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil's state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

"Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska's continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico -- and a de facto moratorium covering the rest -- Obama tells the Brazilians:

""We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you're ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.""

The article details some of President Obama's efforts at blocking America's access to energy:

"Yet in his alleged quest for "secure-energy supplies," he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia's reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada's tar sands to the U.S. market.

"That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 "shovel-ready" jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally."

America has the resources to end its recession.  What we need is an administration in Washington that will let us use those resources.

I should probably apologize to the Keystone Kops for that headline (but I won't)!  The UK Daily Mail posted an article today about the squabbling that is going on in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) regarding the military operation in Libya. 

The article reports:

"President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi's forces within days and NATO would have a coordinating role."

America has maintained a leadership role in the world since World War II.  It is a shame that the Obama Administration is choosing to give up that role.  There is no other democracy currently in a position to assume the responsibility that we are giving up.

One of the problems with having NATO take over the operations in Libya is that the unrest in Libya is not an obvious threat to Europe, which NATO was formed to protect.  There is also the issue of whether or not it is legal for NATO to authorize an air strike to kill Gaddafi.

The article further reports the comments of a NATO diplomat:

"'Yesterday's meeting became a little bit emotional,' the envoy said, adding that France had argued that the coalition led by France, Britain and the United States should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.

"'Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn't make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,' the diplomat said.

"Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

"'There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,' he told news channel CNN Turk."

Meanwhile, yesterday the Washington Examiner reported on the rules of war being placed on Americans involved in the military action in Libya.  These are some of the comments of General Carter Ham, the man who is in command of the United States attacks on Libya:

"Ham was asked what U.S. forces are instructed to do when they encounter pro-Gadhafi military units that are heavily armed but aren't actually attacking civilians. "What we look for is, to the degree that we can, to discern intent," Ham explained. He described a hypothetical situation in which an American pilot spotted a Libyan unit south of Benghazi. If the pilot determined the unit was moving toward the city, he could attack. If he determined the unit was setting up some sort of position, he could also attack. But if he determined the unit was moving away, then he couldn't attack. "There's no simple answer," Ham said. "Sometimes these are situations that brief much better at headquarters than they do in the cockpit of an aircraft.""

This is just stupid.  Are we there to fight or just to be shot at?  If you want a humanitarian mission, send the United Nations!  If we are going to put men in harm's way, we need to allow them to fight.  What we are seeing in Libya is an example of what happens when a Commander-in-Chief has no military experience, no practical business experience and no administrative experience.

On Thursday, Breitbart.com posted an article stating:

"Sodexo USA today filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other defendants under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, to stop the illegal campaign of extortion that the SEIU has been waging in the U.S. for over a year." 

The lawsuit alleges that the SEIU has engaged in blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.

The article reports:

"Sodexo USA recognizes the value of union activity and has built positive relationships with more than 30 different unions.  Over 15 percent of Sodexo USA's workforce is unionized, which is more than twice the national average for the private sector, and the Company has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements.  Despite this positive record, the SEIU has engaged in a vicious campaign to force the Company into broadly recognizing the SEIU to the exclusion of other unions without allowing its employees in the U.S. to exercise their right to vote for or against the SEIU in a federally supervised secret ballot election."

I have said before that I believe the union leaders of today are the robber barons of yesterday.  It is no coincidence that the most frequent visitor to the White House during President Obama's first year was Andy Stern, then President of the SEIU.

Please follow the link to the article to read about the activities of the SEIU that have resulted in this lawsuit.  I don't know if the SEIU is typical of today's unions, but there have been some serious questions in recent elections as to whether or not this particular union has been involved in voter fraud. 

Last December an article at Politico reported:

"Attorney General Eric Holder says that the growing number of American citizens joining terrorist groups including Al Qaeda is "one of the things that keeps me up at night.""

Recently Representative Peter King held hearings to look into the radicalization of American Muslims.  Is this valid, or are we being paranoid?  As the saying goes, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you"--Joseph Heller. 

Yesterday CBN News posted a story about the The Muslim Students Association (MSA), one of the largest Muslim organizations in America, with chapters on hundreds of college campuses.  The article includes a video report showing some of the alumni of the group and some of their activities.  One of the more disturbing items on the video is an excerpt from a question and answer session at the University of California-Davis with David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine where he asks a student member of the MSA, "I'm a Jew.  The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn't have to hunt us down globally. For or against it?"  "For it," the MSA member answered firmly.

Please read the article at CBN News for the list of the MSA alumni.  The article also reports:

"(Former FBI Special Agent John) Guandolo worked on several major terrorism cases for the FBI. He calls the MSA the "focal point" for the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

""Their goal, both from their senior leaders, presidents of MSA's around the country, national leadership, is to implement Islamic government here in the United States," he explained. "And they say that."

"Founded in 1963 at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, the MSA quickly spread to other campuses in the Midwest.

""There were really three leaders, three Iraqi guys: Jamal Barzinji, Ahmed Totonji, and Hisam Altalib, who really set it up, who are known, identified Muslim Brotherhood leaders," said Poole. "And from there, MSA became the mother ship of all the Muslim Brotherhood front groups.""

Anyone want to make a small wager on whether or not the MSA collects 'student fee' money from the colleges where they are located?  I suspect we are funding our own undoing.

Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.) posted an updated analysis on the Libyan opposition leadership yesterday. 

Some of the things the article reports:

"The structure through which the Libyan opposition is represented is the National Transitional Council. The first man to announce its creation was former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who defected from the government Feb. 21 and declared the establishment of a "transitional government" Feb. 26. At the time, Abdel-Jalil claimed that it would give way to national elections within three months, though this was clearly never a realistic goal."

The day after the announcement by Abdel-Jalil, Benghazi-based lawyer named Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga held a news conference where he claimed to be the spokesman for the new council. The article at Stratfor explains how this problem was solved:

"The National Transitional Council officially came into being March 6, and -- for the moment, at least -- has settled the personal and regional rivalry between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga, with the former named the council's head and the latter its spokesman. Despite the drama that preceded the formal establishment of the council, all members of the opposition have always been unified on a series of goals: They want to mount an armed offensive against the government-controlled areas in the west; they want to overthrow Gadhafi; they seek to unify the country with Tripoli as its capital; and they do not want foreign boots on Libyan soil. The unity of the rebels, in short, is based upon a common desire to oust the longtime Libyan leader."

That is the current state of affairs.  The article points out that the opposition forces have not become a meaningful military force.  The air strikes by the nations that are aiding the rebellion have temporarily changed to balance of power to the rebels favor, but there seems to be a lack of basic military cohesion among the rebels.  This is a tribal society, and America has recently experienced some serious difficulties in trying to help tribal societies find unity and democracy. The thing to keep in mind here is that a new government may not be any friendlier to western civilization that the old government was.  The danger here is that we may be facilitating the establishment of a new Islamic state where Sharia Law is the basis of the judicial system.

At the Heritage Foundation's "Morning Bell":

"But the fact that these operations could be successfully undertaken by coalition forces was never in doubt. The problem is that these operations by themselves will not be decisive in either eliminating the regime or fully protecting civilians. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition (headed by the French? the British? or by NATO?) "in a matter of days." What happens if Qadhafi is still in power by that time? The United Nations mandate authorizing these strikes is extremely broad, permitting anything but "occupying" Libya. The coalition has yet to state specific goals for the operation. What does protecting civilians mean."

Yesterday's New York Sun pointed out the similarities between what President Obama is doing and what Sarah Palin suggested three weeks ago.  The Sun points out:

"The former GOP vice presidential candidate was being interviewed on February 23rd on national television by Sean Hannity on a range of issues. On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin's formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week when it was echoed by the man who, before the Iraq war, had led the Iraq democratic movement in exile, Ahmed Chalabi."

On Saturday at National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy stated:

"On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted 10-0 (with five abstentions, including China, Russia, and Germany) to authorize the use of military force (i.e., "all necessary measures") against Libya. Ostensibly, the resolution is designed to protect the Libyan people. But not to mince words, it is a license for war against the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. It would kick hostilities off with a no-fly zone over Libya. As a practical matter, American armed forces must do the heavy lifting if the strategy is to have a prayer, and indications are that President Obama intends to oblige.

"There is a catch: The Security Council is powerless to "authorize" the U.S. military to do a damned thing. The validity of American combat operations is a matter of American law, and that means Congress must authorize them."

Mr. McCarthy does not necessarily argue against the war--he argues that a UN Resolution is no substitute for Congressional authorization.  America has a Constitution.  I know that Congress has sometimes been bypassed when a President decides to go to war, but this is not a good idea.  America really does need to go back to her Constitutional roots.

If you read this blog on a regular basis, you know that I don't support the United Nations.  I believe it has become a club of tyrants do not stand for freedom or prosperity for anyone but themselves.  How they react to the following complaint will either confirm or ruin my theory.

Haaretz reported yesterday that Israel will lodge a formal complaint with the United Nations after more than 50 mortars were fired into Israel from Gaza on Saturday morning.  Hamas has claimed responsibility for 10 of the mortars. 

According to the article:  Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

"(Foreign Minister Avigdor) Lieberman, in a message to the UN, warned that a future Palestinian state would be a "terrorist state who's first and foremost goal is the destruction of Israel."

"The offensive from Gaza took place while "Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were talking about reunification," Lieberman's message said."

I don't know if there has ever been a 'requirement or test' to become a state, but if there were, the actions of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) should disqualify them.  Hamas and the PA have stated that they would like to become a state.  They have also stated that they would like to drive Israel into the sea.  Wouldn't making them a state give them permission to do that?  Does the world really need another terrorist state?  As I have said before, "Change the culture--then create the state."  Until hatred is not taught in the schools in Gaza and until the idea of living in peace is taught, Palestine should not be a state.  The violence isn't about being a state (the violence was there before the idea of statehood was introduced, see Walid Shoebat's website--the idea of a Palestinian state was introduced in 1967--until then Jordan was considered to be the Palestinian state)--this is simply a violent culture that has aimed its anger at Israel.  Let's not make them legitimate.

It will be interesting to see what the United Nations does with the complaint.

On March 17th the Wall Street Journal reported that banks have repaid 99 per cent of the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) money.  That is true, but somewhat misleading if you are trying to evaluate the success or failure of TARP.

The American Spectator reported some additional numbers.  The article points out that the banks have paid back 99 per cent of the money that the banks were given ($244 billion of the $245 billion including some profits that the Treasury Department gained). 

However, this is not the entire picture.  The article at the American Spectator points out:

"...This claim, while accurate, is still not helpful in assessing TARP's effectiveness because, as former Congressional Oversight Panel members Pau Atkins, Mark McWatters, and Kenneth Troske argue in the Journal, "TARP was never where the real action was happening. In fact, other Fed and FDIC programs added another $2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk to the 19 stress-tested banks alone, on top of the $1.1 trillion of MBS purchased by the Fed. TARP is but one-eighth of that total." Those numbers do not even include the Fed's near-zero interest rate policy, which has allowed big banks to earn risk-free profits."

Neil Barofsky, who is the outgoing Special Inspector General for TARP, explained that creating a safety net for large banks made it possible for those banks to take greater risks. 

Mr. Barofsky explained:

"Credit-rating firms are to giving these "too big to fail" institutions higher ratings based on the government's implied guarantee, Mr. Barofsky said. As a result, he said, lenders "give those institutions access to debt at a price that does not fully account for the risks created by their behavior."

"That effective government subsidy, he said, enables big profits and "allows the largest institutions to become even larger relative to the economy while materially disadvantaging smaller banks." [Emphasis added.]"

It is nice that the banks who took TARP money have repaid most of it.  However, the damage done to the free market is going to take a long time to repair.

This is an article about Libya.  There are no links to the situation in Libya because you can google Libya and get lots of stories you can read.  There will be other links to make various points.

I have hesitated to write about Libya because the situation there is changing rapidly and I also don't have a lot of trust in the news reports coming out of there.  You may remember that in April of 2003 Eason Jordan posted an op-ed piece in the New York Times explaining that his reporting on Iraq before the US invasion of that country was not complete.  Mr. Jordan was concerned for his safety and the safety of his sources and kept that in mind in his reporting.  Whether or not you agree with that, it is a fact of life.

The forest I refer to in the headline of this article is the uprisings that have taken place in the Middle East in the past few months--beginning with Egypt.  The common element in these uprisings is the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been banned in both Egypt and Libya.  The dictators in Egypt and Libya, Mubarak and Gaddafi, are (and were) dictators.  They should never have received any sort of support from America (Gaddafi didn't receive support, but we often turned a blind eye to his activities).  However, there are not a lot of Jeffersonian Democrats in the Middle East.  We need to keep that in mind.  Islam and democracy do not seem to co-exist well for extended periods of time--watch what is happening in Turkey (History News Network from George Mason University).

One thing to remember here is the role of Iran in the Middle East.  When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, a constitution was put in place that calls for the establishment of a world-wide caliphate (Islamic State under Sharia Law).  Please remember this as you look at events in the Middle East.  It it interesting that the current unrest in the Middle East is in countries that are not currently strong supporters of Sharia Law.  I have an uncomfortable feeling that after the smoke clears, many of these formerly secular countries will not longer be secular.

Sometimes the most basic examples are the best.  This is one of them.  John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line yesterday that puts the budget debate in terms that I can understand.

In the interest of science (of course), John went to McDonald's and ordered a Big Mac Extra Value Meal.  He based his research on a Cato Institute report that commented on the 'budget slashing' Continuing Resolution recently passed:

"Federal spending has soared by more than $2,000,000,000,000 during the Bush-Obama years, pushing the burden of government up to $3,800,000,000,000, yet the reporters who put together this story said that an agreement to trim a trivially tiny slice of 2011 spending would "slash the budget."

"As Charlie Brown would say, good grief. This is the budgetary equivalent of going on a diet by leaving a couple of french fries in the bottom of the bag after bingeing on three Big Mac meals at McDonald's."

John decided to follow up on this concept.  John Hinderaker concluded:

",,,If there are 570 calories in a large order of fries, and 87 fries per order, each french fry, on the average, contains 6.5 calories. One 633rd of the total calorie content of a Big Mac Extra Value Meal is 1,320/633, or 2.1 calories. That equals almost exactly one-third of an average sized french fry.

"So, consider: if you were to go on what the Democrats consider a starvation diet, and "slash" your calorie intake to exactly the same degree that the Republicans' $6 billion cut has "slashed" the federal budget, you would do the following. Go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac Extra Value meal. Eat the Big Mac. Drink the Coke. Eat 86 of the 87 french fries. Carefully take the last fry and bite off two-thirds of it. Put the remaining one-third of one fry back in the bag.

"If you seriously think that you have just "slashed" your diet, you are a Democrat. Most likely, an overweight Democrat."

All this ruckus about budget cuts involves cuts that equal only one third of a french fry.  Good grief is right. 

Fleming and Hayes reported yesterday on a ruling by 13th Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielson that a civil suit between the "Islamic Education Center of Tampa" and four of it`s trusties be settled, not in a court of law, but under "Ecclesiastical Islamic Law".  Just for the record, Ecclesiastical Islamic Law is Sharia Law.

This is part of the ruling.  Follow the link to Fleming and Hayes to see the entire ruling.

Lest you think Sharia Law is ok, here are a few of its tenants (via an American Thinker article from August 2005).

Commands that drinkers and gamblers by whipped.

Allows wife beating, even for such things as 'highhandedness.'

Allows for 'an eye for an eye' as legal revenge.

Requires hands of those who steal to be cut off.

Highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

Homosexuals should be executed.

Orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Orders death for Muslims (and possible death for non-Muslims) who criticize Mohammad, the Quran, and Sharia.

Orders the killing of apostates.

Commands aggressive and offensive jihad.

It is obvious from reading the above (follow the link to the American Thinker to get details on each point) that Sharia Law is not compatible with American law.  To introduce Sharia Law (and set a precedent) is dangerous to the freedom of Americans.

When I retired from my regular job, I thought I went out with a bang--my boss threw a party for me at Dave & Busters.  It was just my speed.  Well, Wednesday's Boston Herald showed me how the experts do it.

The Herald posted a story about the staff bonuses given out by the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation last year.  Representative William Delahunt, who retired in January, was extremely generous.

The article reports:

"Delahunt, who retired in January after 14 years on Capitol Hill, gave his staff an additional $117,000 in the fourth quarter of 2010, which represented a 38 percent hike in his quarterly payroll, despite a spokesman's claim that his staff was sharply reduced.

"Delahunt spokesman Mark Forest said the congressman gave "performance-based" bonuses to staffers, whose workload increased once the Quincy Democrat announced his retirement."

Wow.  The article further reports:

"The bonuses were revealed by congressional watchdog Legistorm, which found that 96 lame ducks handed out a total of $6.7 million in staff bonuses as they left office. House members are given office budgets of $1.4 million to $2 million, and many give bonuses at the end of each year rather than return unspent money."

Well, at least I now have an idea of why the federal budget never goes down--"many give bonuses at the end of each year rather than return unspent money."  That explains a lot.  Until we change the culture of spending in Washington, we will never have a fiscally responsible budget.

Admittedly, this is rather naive on my part, but when I vote, I assume that the names on the ballot are there because they want to be and stand for whatever they say they stand for.  Evidently that's not always true.  It was not true in Michigan in 2010.

This article has three sources--Power Line yesterday, Hot Air yesterday, and Fox News in Detroit.  All three articles are reporting on an election plot by two former leaders of the Oakland County Democratic Party. 

Ed Morrissey reports at Hot Air:

"If you can't beat 'em ... fake 'em out? Two Democratic Party leaders in Michigan face nine felony counts after prosecutors allege that they forged documents to put fake Tea Party candidates on the ballot. Unlike other schemes where Democrats allegedly recruited candidates to run on ersatz Tea Party organization identities, these "candidates" had no idea they were on the ballot at all, some of them only discovering it after receiving delinquency notices on filings."  

The Detroit News reports:

"It's not illegal to be a non-serious candidate.  That's not what's being alleged here.  What is being alleged is that the people that were on the ballot were phony candidates and that they got there by fraudulent means.  That's the crime."

Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said that 23 statewide races had questionable Tea Party candidates on the ballot and the investigation may go beyond Oakland County.

Wow.  When did Chicago move to Michigan?

USA Today posted an article about the economic boom that is currently going on in North Dakota.  Yes, I did say North Dakota.  Fargo has grown rapidly, reaching a population of 105,549. 

The article reports:

"North Dakota is one of the nation's least diverse states. Hispanic, black and Asian residents each make up 2% or less of its population. American Indians are the largest minority group, equal to 5.4% of the population.

"The superstar of North Dakota is its economy. The state's unemployment rate hasn't touched 5% since 1987. The state's per capita income rose over the decade from 38th in the nation to 17th, the biggest advance of any state."

What is the secret of this prosperity?  The article explains:

"North Dakota is enjoying an oil boom in the western part of the state, drawing workers from across the country. Williston, in oil country, grew 17.6% to 14,716. The oil windfall has created a $1 billion state budget surplus.

"Agriculture -- 90% of the state's area is used for farms and ranches -- is productive and profitable, making the state a top exporter of wheat and other crops. Federal agriculture subsidies add nearly $1 billion a year.

"North Dakota is one of the few states to add manufacturing jobs over the decade. Bobcat, maker of farm and construction equipment, is headquartered in the state."

Developing America's energy sources creates jobs, income and economic growth.  How can we get Washington to follow the example of North Dakota?

Yesterday's Wshington Post posted an article about the release of Raymond A. Davis, a CIA contractor who has been in prison in Pakistan since January 27. 

The article reports:

"At the time of his arrest, Davis was serving as a security guard for a team of CIA operatives gathering intelligence on militant organizations in Lahore, including Lashkar-i-Taiba, a group that has carried out deadly attacks against India and has long been backed by the ISI.

"A former U.S. Special Operations soldier and employee of the private security firm known as Blackwater, Davis said he fired in self-defense after being approached by two armed men on a motorcycle in an apparent robbery attempt at a traffic signal.

"U.S. officials initially asserted that Davis was merely a State Department employee entitled to diplomatic immunity. President Obama called him "our diplomat" and argued that he should be released. But Pakistani officials disagreed."

The article also reports:

"A broad agreement was reached last Friday to make blood money payments to the families, but officials said there were concerns that it might unravel as the families argued about the terms.

"Such payments are incorporated into Pakistan's statutes under "compensation and forgiveness" provisions of sharia law."

This is a glorified ransom payment--and even at that the release of Mr. Davis is not popular with many Pakistanis.

The U K Independent reported yesterday:

"The US had insisted that Davis had diplomatic immunity and demanded Pakistan free him immediately.

"Pakistani officials, faced with criticism by Islamist parties and members of the public, had refused to state clearly whether he had immunity.

Pakistani officials had suggested that the payment of "blood money" was the best solution and in recent days speculation mounted that such a deal was in the works.

"Mr Sanaullah said Davis was charged with murder before members of the dead mens' families were taken into the court, where they signed papers formally forgiving him in exchange for £2.3 million dollars.

"Judges then acquitted him on all charges."

There is one more small detail to this story as reported in the Washington Post:

"Negotiations to resolve the dispute began in earnest three weeks ago, when Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) made a surprise trip to Pakistan at the administration's request to try to ease tensions.

"A broad agreement was reached last Friday to make blood money payments to the families, but officials said there were concerns that it might unravel as the families argued about the terms."

There are no words...

I was about to write a post about an article by Hugh Hewitt posted at Townhall.com when I came across another article at the Daily Caller which totally undid my thinking for the first post. 

Here is the story.  Mr. Hewitt posted an article entitled, "The McClellan Republicans."  The article states:

"Speaker John Boehner, GOP Leader Eric Cantor and GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy have been in their saddles since November 2, and even though their formal power only arrived in January, they have had more than four months to prepare the debate over the CR, the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget.

"If they prepared at all they prepared poorly, concentrating on symbolic gestures and focusing on procedural niceties like "open rules" rather than closing with the Democrats and forcing the first of the many showdowns ahead on spending. The phony cuts assembled thus far -the GOP talking points say $8 billion has been sawed from the federal budget--have not resulted in a single lay-off or program closure. One could look for months and see no effect from these paper cuts."

The article totally echoes my frustration with the Republican leadership.  Meanwhile, the Daily Caller is reporting:

"In wake of conservative James O'Keefe's Project Verutas sting videos of National Public Radio (NPR) senior executives, House Republicans are set to vote Thursday to defund NPR completely.  They're expected to pass a bill that would pull all taxpayer money out of NPR, including the money that's funneled through the Corporationn for Public Broadcasting (CPB)."

If they pass it, can they make their case well enough to get it through the Senate and past the President?

America's spending is out of control.  We can no longer afford NPR (and many other things).  If this Congress can't figure that out, we will have to elect a new one in 2012!

Last night I watched the movie Iranium at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts.  I have heard about the movie, but have never had a chance to see it.  It is well worth seeing.  I will try to highlight some of it here.

The movie begins in 1978 with Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran.  He was a dictator who was attempting to turn the country into a modern pro-Western society.  As unrest began, America withdrew her support of his regime, and in February 1979, the Shah was overthrown.  Two weeks after the Shah fled, Ruhollah Khomeini (known as "the ayatollah") was welcomed home from exile as a hero.  In November of 1979, the American Embassy in Tehran was stormed.  The feeble response of the United States sent the message to the Iranian regime that America was weak and would not respond.  Since that time, Iran has felt free to sponsor terrorism around the world without fear of retaliation by the United States.  It should be noted that when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, the hostages taken when the American Embassy was stormed were released.  President Reagan was not seen as the same kind of weak President that Jimmy Carter had been.

The goal of Ayatollah Khomeini is a world-wide caliphate achieved by a world-wide Islamic revolution.  Over the past thirty years, Iran has sponsored terrorism around the world in order to achieve that aim.  The movie Iranium details many of those activities and documents the fact that Iran is engaged in extending its reach into the Western Hemisphere. 

As Iran extends its reach, it is also seeking nuclear weapons.  Iran was one of the countries that received nuclear technology from Pakistani nuclear scientist A Q Khan (Abdul Qadeer Khan).   The question then becomes, "What is the impact of a nuclear Iran?"  That is the topic of the movie.

At this point the movie reminded me of something I had forgotten--it was the fact that at one point during its war with Iraq, Iran sent young boys running across minefields (promising them instant admittance to paradise when they were killed) to clear the path for tanks and troops.  I can't wrap my head around that.  That is the mentality we are dealing with.

The movie does not recommend a military attack on Iran by western countries.    The hope in the movie and in the question and answer period that followed the movie was in the 'Green Revolution.'  The 'Green Revolution' erupted into public violence after the 2009 elections.  The people of Iran felt that the elections were fixed and that their votes did not count.  It was pointed out that the regime in Iran will eventually collapse.  The hope is that the collapse will take place before they have nuclear weapons.  The current regime does not represent the Iranian people, but there is no guarantee that a new regime would not become a secular dictatorship as brutal as the religious dictatorship in charge now.

The thing to remember in considering Iran and its role in the world is the fact that the goal of the current regime in Iran is to set up a world-wide caliphate.  The goal is world-wide Sharia law.  There are areas in Europe and Britain where the Muslim population of countries is less than five percent, but there are already areas under Muslim control where the police will not go.  France particularly has had a dramatic rise in anti-Semitic activity in recent years.  Iran is not only a problem for Israel and other nations in the Middle East.  Iran is an American problem.

As has been previously reported:

Media reports said a baby girl of three months, two children aged three and 11, and their parents Ehud and Ruth Fogel were all stabbed to death in the Friday night attack in Itamar near the Palestinian town of Nablus.

There will be a memorial service for the Fogel family tomorrow in New York City.  The following letter has gone out about the service:

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

12:00 noon
Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun
125 East85th Street(Park-Lex)
New York City

Join in a community wide memorial service for the five members of the Fogel family who were brutally murdered this past weekend while asleep in their home. We must not be silent! We must demand justice for the victims. Speak out against the continuing incitement against Israel and the Jewish people.

Co-Sponsors
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Consulate General of Israel in New York
Jewish Community Relations Council of New York
UJA-Federation of New York
(In formation)

Dear Friends,

In the event that you cannot join us in person at tomorrow's memorial program, please consider participating via our online webcast using the link below. Please also help us by circulating this link and flyer to your networks.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-from-ckj

The webcast link will go live at 12 noon today.

Tonight I had the privilege of attending a showing of the movie "Iranium" and meeting Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy.  The movie puts in context many of the terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world in the past thirty years.  The movie is not a call to military action--it is a call to be informed, share information, and make sure our leaders are not ignoring basic facts.

I will write a detailed article about the movie and the question and answer session that followed the movie tomorrow, but I am still trying to grasp what I saw and heard.  I would much rather live with my head in the sand, but I suspect that the time when I, as an average American, could afford that luxury is now over.

Please visit the website linked above and learn about "Iranium."

I don't claim to be unbiased in writing this article.  I am an American.  I am the daughter of a D-Day U. S. Army Officer, the wife of a Viet Nam era Navy veteran, and the mother-in-law of a Marine.  I love my country and I believe in Western culture.

In recent years, Americans have been told that their culture and 'civilization' is no better than anyone else's and that there is not anything particularly noteworthy about western civilization.  Well, this isn't an American story, but it is definitely a cultural story.

As has been reported:

Media reports said a baby girl of three months, two children aged three and 11, and their parents Ehud and Ruth Fogel were all stabbed to death in the Friday night attack in Itamar near the Palestinian town of Nablus.

Contrast that with a story that appeared in YNET News today:

"Just as IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz arrived in Neve Tzuf to offer his condolences, a Palestinian cab raced towards the community's entrance. In it, soldiers and paramedics discovered a Palestinian woman in her 20s in advanced stages of labor and facing a life-threatening situation: The umbilical cord was wrapped around the young baby girl's neck, endangering both her and her mother.

 "The quick action of settler paramedics and IDF troops deployed in the area saved the mother's and baby's life, prompting great excitement and emotions at the site where residents are still mourning the brutal death of five local family members."

Which culture would you rather be a part of?

The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that a cargo vessel was seized by the Israeli Defense Forces.  The ship was flying a Liberian flag and was carrying Chinese-made anti-ship missiles, as well as instruction manuals in Farsi.

It is believed the weapons were headed for Hamas and other groups in the Gaza Strip. 

The article reports:

"The commandos did not encounter resistance when boarding the ship and were given the cargo certificates indicating that 39 containers had been loaded in the Syrian port of Latakia.

"Two weeks earlier, a pair of Iranian warships had docked at the same port - possibly carrying weapons. Four of the containers, found with heavy locks, were slated to be unloaded in the port of Alexandria in Egypt.

"The ship left Latakia and sailed to the port of Mersin in Turkey - likely a ploy meant to deflect attention from the ship and its cargo. The IDF stressed that it believed that neither Egypt nor Turkey was involved in the arms shipment.

"According to the certificates, the containers were supposed to be carrying cotton and lentils, but when the commandos pulled out the first row of sacks they found crates of mortar shells and advanced anti-ship missiles."

I think one of the consequences of the change of regime in Egypt will be more of these ships.  I am not saying that Egypt was directly involved--I am simply suggesting that they may not pay close attention to what is shipped to Gaza through their country. 

Please understand, the ruling powers in Gaza have no plans for a peaceful Palestinian State--their plan is to drive Israel into the sea.  That plan has not changed in more than sixty years.

Regardless of which side of the battle you favor in the recent Wisconsin struggle, there are a few things that should concern you.  A website called Legal Insurrection posted a story about what happened when Republicans attempted to collect signatures on a petition to recall the Senators who fled the state three weeks ago.

The article reports:

"Upon arrival, members of the recall committee were encircled by union protesters carrying signs and a leader with a mega phone who began chanting and ranting loudly. They packed in tightly around the petition collection table so as to prevent those attempting to sign from doing so. At one point, a pro union protester, pretending to be interested in signing the petition, wrote profanity across a partially collected petition form, than began ripping up the completed petitions that were in close proximity.

"The policemen who were there, and who were standing in close proximity to these events as they unfolded, did nothing to assist those collecting the petitions as they were being destroyed, despite such an action being a Felony under Wisconsin law. Police also did nothing to clear the walk way for citizens that wanted to sign the petitions. Recall Committee members received many phone calls the following day from Merill area citizens who stated that they showed up to sign the petition, but were too afraid to get out of their vehicles and approach the recall table."

The thing to remember here is that according to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January of this year, 6.9 percent of the private sector belongs to unions and 36.2 percent of the public sector belongs to unions.  These numbers do not represent majorities.  The voters included in these numbers are not capable of passing or stopping any legislation either on a state or federal level.  That might explain some of their over-the-top antics.

The article further reports:

"Emotions ran high as ralliers took to the Lincoln County Courthouse, calling for the recall of Democratic State Senator Jim Holperin, one of the 14 senators who fled the state more than three weeks ago.

"Organizers say the rally was originally scheduled at Club 64 in Merrill, but they had to change locations after business owners say they received more than 50 phone calls threatening to destroy their business and cause physical harm if the rally took place.

"Protestors both for and against the recall showed up. Even though they initially kept their distance, Holperin supporters engulfed the recall effort, and that's when the situation turned tense.

""They circled around us, and they're bullying us. They have a loud horn and they're trying to intimidate people that would like to come and sign the petition," said Kim Simac, recall leader, "I do think that this is an intimidation ploy."

"Simac says protestors even got involved with their petitions.

""We had a lady come up and write profanity and rip some of them right on our table.... so I guess that's what democracy looks like to them.""

This sort of behavior is not good news for our democracy.  The fact that many of the police are not in a hurry to do their job is also not a good sign.

Yesterday Hot Air reported:

"The foreign minister of France, which was spearheading the push for a NFZ initially, flatly admitted today that it's probably too late now. Qaddafi rolled over the rebels in Ajdabiya last night and is poised to utterly devastate the last rebel fortress in Benghazi, so by the time the Security Council passes a resolution and NATO scrambles to begin operations against Libyan air defenses, the entire country may be back in Qaddafi's hands. (So quickly are the regime's troops advancing that when Newsweek published this piece last night about a "decisive" battle to come, that battle was already basically over. Already the news has shifted to Benghazi's defenders "bracing for death.") Even the rebels know it's too late for a NFZ: Yesterday they expanded their requests from a no-flight zone to include airstrikes against Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli. They're not strong enough anymore to take him out so they're begging us to do it for them."

There was no quarantee that if the rebels succeeded in overthrowing Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi that the government that followed would be friendly to the United States.  I can, however, guarantee that because President Obama has stood back and refused to help the rebels, if by some miracle the rebels succeed, they will not be friendly to the United States.  Why would they be?  We used to have something called 'black ops' which took care of things like this, but the Church Committee in 1975 limited our activies around the world.  We have never fully recovered from the actions that committee took.  What we really need is Mitch Rapp.

I am truly sorry that we cannot find some way to help the rebels in Libya.  I don't want to send troops into Libya, but a few well-placed predator drones would have been a really good idea.

Today's Daily Caller posted a story about Senator Chuck Schumer telling John Boehner that Representative Boehner needs to abandon the Tea Party because Democrats helped pass the short term spending bill yesterday.  I would like to go on the record as saying that if Representative Boehner abandons the Tea Party, he will find himself in the minority after the next election.

Passing the Continuing Resolution was a serious error in judgment on the part of the Republicans.  I believe it was done out of fear that they would be blamed if the government shuts down.  Let's remember why we are dealing with Continuing Resolutions--it's because the Democrat Party when they controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency didn't bother to pass a budget for 2011.  The Republicans need to state that at every opportunity they have to talk to the press.

The Continuing Resolution is a delaying tactic by the Democrats.  By approving it, the Republicans may have simply given away the store--I will be very surprised if we see any of the measures the conservative voters have demanded put into place.  I don't believe we will see the defunding of Planned Parenthood, NPR, Obamacare, etc.  I think the Republicans lost the battle to cut spending yesterday.  My solution--primary challenges for every Republican who voted for the Continuing Resolution.

This post is based on two articles--one from the Daily Caller yesterday and one from ABC News yesterday.

The Daily Caller reports that the new Continuing Resolution does not include any of the riders that were included in the first Continuing Resolution.  These were the riders that defunded such organizations as Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, and such programs as Obamacare and EPA climate change. 

The Democrat strategy in this debate is to stall the budget debate long enough so that the Continuing Resolution, raising the debt ceiling, and the 2012 budget are all lumped together.  The idea is that doing that would decrease any leverage or political advantage the Republicans may have if all three items are debated separately.

ABC News notes:

"Rep. Steve King is lobbying his colleagues to take their fight against President Obama's health care law to a new level: He wants to cut off funding for the law as a condition for keeping other government funds in place.

""We have a leverage point, and it is the funding for the government for the balance of the fiscal year 2011," King, R-Iowa, told us today on ABC's "Top Line." "This is the place to pitch the fight."

"If such a stance brings about a partial government shutdown, it would be Democrats' fault, King said: "If we shut off the funding to implement Obamacare and the Senate or the president refuses to go along with it, that is their decision, not ours.""

The thing to keep in mind here is the reason why this debate is happening.  As I have previously reported in a rightwinggranny article of March 13th:

At the beginning of January 2010, the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency.  In the Senate, after the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, there were 57 Democrats (including Independents who caucused with the Democrats) and 41 Republicans.  In the House of Representatives there were 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans.  The U. S. Government's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30.  Congress is expected to pass a budget bill before the start of the fiscal year.  Budget bills are constitutionally required to begin in the House of Representatives.  The failure to pass a budget for 2011 falls squarely on the shoulders of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House of Representatives--they simply did not do their job--they funded the government through temporary measures.  Now they are screaming because the Republicans are introducing spending cuts into those temporary measures.  The President is screaming at Congress and blaming the Republicans because his Democrat party failed to pass a budget while they held the majority.

The time for political posturing is over.  We are in the middle of a fiscal crisis that will get worse if we do not seriously cut government spending.  Please follow this link to Paul Ryan's Budget Presentation.  There you will see charts and graphs that explain exactly what our current situation is.  It's time to stop playing politics and seriously cut the budget.

The U K Telegraph reported yesterday that an Indian naval ship closed in on a hijacked fishing vessel just under 700 miles off the Kerala coastal port of Cochin, capturing 61 suspected pirates and 13 of the boat's crew who had been held captive.

According to the article:

"They were finally caught on Sunday after they opened fire on the approaching Indian naval ship. They were forced to jump overboard when their own vessel was set ablaze caught fire in fierce retaliatory fire from the Indian ship. The 13 original crew members were freed in the raid. Indian officials said they found 80 to 90 small arms or rifles and some heavy weapons on the fishing vessel."

"The number of pirate attacks and the scale of their demands has increased singnificantly in recent months. More than 660 people are currently believed to be held hostage in pirates from raids on 30 ships."

The article reports that India has increased its anti-pirate activity in the Indian Ocean.  In January 15 pirates were captured; in February 28.

I will admit up front that I do not speak Arabic and have to depend on others for the following translation.  However, I also would like to note that this story fits the pattern of stories I have heard in the past.

Yesterday, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the brutal murder of an Israeli family last Friday.  The Hamas website talks about the murders twice--once in English and once in Arabic.  The contrast between the two entires is striking.

On the English side of the website, Hamas says that killing children is not part of Hamas' policy, nor is it the policy of the resistance factions.  The English side of the site states that Hamas is not responsible for the murder of the family.

The Arab side of the site tells another story:

Five Zionist usurpers were killed the morning of Saturday, 12 March 2011, in a knife-stabbing carried out by a Palestinian in the usurper (settlement) of Itamar east of the city of Nablus.

Our correspondent in Nablus reported that a Palestinian mujahid was able to break into the usurper (settlement) of "Itamar" south of Nablus in the occupied (West) Bank, and stabbed five Zionist usurpers.

Zionist media sources said that "A Palestinian broke into the usurper (settlement) between the hours of 9:30 - 11:00 PM, and killed five usurpers from one family while they were sleeping." They confirmed that the perpetrator of the act was able to escape. ...

Eye-witnesses informed our correspondents that Zionist airplanes, powerful forces from the military and police, and ambulances rushed to the scene and transported the wounded and slain, while occupation forces spread throughout the vicinity of the village of Awarta, and fired dozens of flares. ...

Also, the al-Qassam Brigades were able to execute a series of operations in August of last year, which were named "Stream of Fire," by which the mujahideen of al-Qassam were able to kill four Zionists. Intelligence officials from both the military and Abbas's militias in the West Bank were confounded by these operations, and worked with all diligence to try to discover the perpetrators.

The comments on the Arabic side applaud the murders. 

Until the attitude expressed on the Arabic side of Hamas' website changes, we need to isolate Hamas, stop sending them financial aid (which they use for weapons), and make it clear that their behavior is unacceptable.  Children are not born hating others; hate is a learned behavior.  Until the indoctrination of the Palestinian children ends, there will not be peace in the Middle East.  One thing to keep in mind as the debate on Palestine continues is a statement by Walid Shoebat, "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?"

The Wall Street Journal surveys a group of 56 economists at various times during the year to ask for their opinions on various areas of the economy.  In the lastest survey, the economists predicted that the unemployment rate would be 7.7 percent in November 2012. 

The article points out:

"The early 1980s recovery moved at a much faster pace than the current upturn, especially in the job market. The 1984 election was held two years after unemployment hit its cyclical peak, and had already fallen by 3.6 percentage points. By contrast, the most recent peak in the jobless rate was at 10.1% in October 2009, and if economists are correct, that would mean a decline of just 2.4 percentage points in more than three years."

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air took a second look at the numbers yesterday.  Mr. Morrissey points out:

"A few caveats are in order in this analysis.  First, nothing here accounts for the civilian participation rate in the workforce, which has dropped to 64.2%, the lowest since 1982.  If that stays the same, then 7.7% won't be as beneficial as it sounds, since it will mask a much higher drop in actual employment in relation to the population than the overall rate would indicate.  During the last expansion, that number was up to 67.2% at its peak, which means that a significant number of people have dropped off the grid.  And if they decided to start looking for jobs again, their return will spike the jobless number upward considerably even if the economy is producing a significant number of new jobs by then."

If the participation rate is not considered in the unemployment numbers, the numbers have no meaning.  We need to keep that in mind as the numbers are announced.

My favorite Marine is on his way home after 13 months in Afghanistan!!!!!!!\

Thank you to him and all the men and women who serve.

Thanks also to Walpole Floral and Garden Center on Route 1A in Walpole, Massachusetts, for the beautiful bow.

This article is based on two articles posted on Saturday dealing with the murder of a Jewish family in the West Bank.  Yahoo News posted the Associated Press story on the murders.  Ynet News posted a story about the celebrations in Gaza following the murders. 

The Associated Press story reports:

"Media reports said a baby girl of three months, two children aged three and 11, and their parents Ehud and Ruth Vogel were all stabbed to death in the Friday night attack in Itamar near the Palestinian town of Nablus.

"Army radio said two other children had been spared and a third, a girl of 10, had arrived home late and alerted neighbours that something was wrong."

Ynet News reports:

"Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.

"Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy "is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank.""

To be fair, the story at YNet did report:

"...Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad said he "clearly and firmly denounces the terror attack, just as I have denounced crimes against Palestinians. 

""We are against all types of violence," Fayyad said during a tour in Bethlehem. "Our position has not changed. As we have said many times before, we categorically oppose violence and terror, regardless of the identity of the victims or the perpetrators.""

This may be a politically incorrect statement, but I don't want to see a Palestinian state until the culture of the people of Palestine changes.  Regardless of what the Palestinian Prime Minister said, the actions of the residents of Gaza say more.  Where is the compassion for innocent children?  Slitting the throats of an innocent family as they are sleeping is not a civilized activity.  The world does not need another rogue nation--regardless of how small that nation is.

Obviously, my prayers go out to the people of Japan, but there is a cultural aspect of this disaster that is very interesting.  The U K Telegraph posted an article this moring that asked the question, "Why is there no looting in Japan?"

The article points out:

"And solidarity seems especially strong in Japan itself. Perhaps even more impressive than Japan's technological power is its social strength, with supermarkets cutting prices and vending machine owners giving out free drinks as people work together to survive. Most noticeably of all, there has been no looting, and I'm not the only one curious about this.

"This is quite unusual among human cultures, and it's unlikely it would be the case in Britain. During the 2007 floods in the West Country abandoned cars were broken into and free packs of bottled water were stolen. There was looting in Chile after the earthquake last year - so much so that troops were sent in; in New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina saw looting on a shocking scale."

As I said, my prayers go out to the people of Japan.  I am proud that America, Britain, and many countries around the world have come to the aid of Japan after this disaster.  It also gives me hope that seventy plus years ago, Japan was an enemy of the United States and Britain, and now is a respected member of the world community.  It is amazing how quickly the political landscape of the world changes.

This is a link to an article in today's Jewish World Review about two letters written following the recent events in Wisconsin.  The first letter was sent to the Republican Senators in Wisconsin who voted to limit the power of public service unions.

This is the first letter (unedited):

"Please put your things in order because you will be killed and your familes [sic]will also be killed due to your actions in the last 8 weeks. Please explain to them that this is because if we get rid of you and your families then it will save the rights of 300,000 people and also be able to close the deficit that you have created. I hope you have a good time in hell. Read below for more information on possible scenarios in which you will die."

"WE want to make this perfectly clear. Because of your actions today and in the past couple of weeks I and the group of people that are working with me have decided that we've had enough. We feel that you and the people that support the dictator have to die. We have tried many other ways of dealing with your corruption but you have taken things too far and we will not stand for it any longer. So, this is how it's going to happen: I as well as many others know where you and your family live, it's a matter of public records. We have all planned to assult [sic] you by arriving at your house and putting a nice little bullet in your head. However, we decided that we wouldn't leave it there. We also have decided that this may not be enough to send the message to you since you are so "high" on Koch and have decided that you are now going to single handedly make this a dictatorship instead of a demorcratic [sic] process. So we have also built several bombs that we have placed in various locations around the areas in which we know that you frequent. This includes, your house, your car, the state capitol, and well I won't tell you all of them because that's just no fun. Since we know that you are not smart enough to figure out why this is happening to you we have decided to make it perfectly clear to you. If you and your goonies feel that it's necessary to strip the rights of 300,000 people and ruin their lives, making them unable to feed, clothe, and provide the necessities to their families and themselves then We Will "get rid of" (in which I mean kill) you. Please understand that this does not include the heroic Rep. Senator that risked everything to go against [sic] what you and your goonies wanted him to do. We feel that it's worth our lives to do this, because we would be saving the lives of 300,000 people. Please make your peace with G0d as soon as possible and ay goodbye to your loved ones we will not wait any longer. YOU WILL DIE!!!!"

The second letter (unedited) was sent to a private business owner:

March 10, 2011
Mr. Tom Ellis, President
Marshall & Ilsley Corporation
770 N. Water Street
Milwaukee, WI 53202
SENT VIA FASCIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL

"Dear Mr. Ellis:

As you undoubtedly know, Governor Walker recently proposed a "budget adjustment bill" to eviscerate public employees' right to collectively bargain in Wisconsin. .."

"As you also know, Scott Walker did not campaign on this issue when he ran for office. If he had, we are confident that you would not be listed among his largest contributors. As such, we are contacting you now to request your support."

"The undersigned groups would like your company to publicly oppose Governor Walker's efforts to virtually eliminate collective bargaining for public employees in Wisconsin. While we appreciate that you may need some time to consider this request, we ask for your response by March 17. In the event that you do not respond to this request by that date, we will assume that you stand with Governor Walker and against the teachers, nurses, police officers, fire fighters, and other dedicated public employees who serve our communities."

"In the event that you cannot support this effort to save collective bargaining, please be advised that the undersigned will publicly and formally boycott the goods and services provided by your company. However, if you join us, we will do everything in our power to publicly celebrate your partnership in the fight to preserve the right of public employees to be heard at the bargaining table. Wisconsin's public employee unions serve to protect and promote equality and fairness in the workplace. We hope you will stand with us and publicly share that ideal."

"In the event you would like to discuss this matter further, please contact the executive Director of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association, Jim Palmer, at 608.273.3840."

"Thank you in advance for your consideration. We look forward to hearing from you soon."

James L. Palmer, Executive Director
Wisconsin Professional Police Association
Mahlon Mitchell,President
Professional Professional [sic] Fire Fighters
Jim Conway, President
International Association of Fire Fighters Local 311
John Matthews, Execuctive Director
Madison Teachers, Inc.
Keith Patt, Executive Director
Green Bay Education Association
Bob Richardson, President
Dane County Deputy Sheriffs Association
Dan Frei, Prersident
Madison Professional Police Officers Association

I know this was an important vote.  I know that this was an emotional vote, but the behavior of the people writing these letters is totally unacceptable.  Threats are not a reasonable to a vote that did not go the way you wanted it to.  This is not even freedom of speech--this is mob intimidation.  The mob that accepts this sort of activity needs to rethink what it is supporting.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the Economic Report of the President (ERP) which was released on Saturday night.  Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, had a few observations about the report which were reported in the Power Line Article.

The ERP promotes the development and solar and wind power, but has no plan for developing the oil resources of the United States.  Mr. Haapala points out a few problems with solar and wind as the total solution to our energy problems.  Imported oil is generally used in the United States as a transportation fuel--less than one percent is used to generate electricity.  This opens up a whole new world of problems and solutions--unless Americans are willing to drive electric cars, our dependence on oil as an energy source will not end.  Even if we develop the technology to make good electric cars, we still have to generate the electricity to fuel them.

The article specifically states:

* It omits any discussion of the poor 120-year economic history of wind-generated electricity - erratic wind power was always rejected by consumers demanding reliable, affordable electricity.

* It omits the staggering investments China is making in traditional sources for generating electricity. The EPR emphasizes China's development of solar and wind but ignores massive investments in nuclear, coal, and hydro. This omission leads to the false assertion that the US is in a race with China for wind and solar power.

* It omits any rigorous economic discussion of the difference between government expenditures and government investment. Expenditures are exactly that, they may create jobs and prosperity for a few, but not for the general public. Successful investments create general prosperity yielding far more to the general public than the cost. Replacing coal plants which reliably generate affordable electricity with wind farms or solar plants that unreliably generate more expensive electricity is an expenditure, not an investment. Such an action is no more an investment than replacing the reliable family car with an exotic, expensive, high-maintenance sports car. It may create jobs for some but at the expense of the family.

* It omits any discussion of an existing technology that can economically store electricity on an industrial scale. Without one, spending heavily on solar or wind is speculation.

In short, the EPR does not provide a path to a prosperous energy future, but a path to a boxed canyon that will make the US uncompetitive in the world markets.

There may someday be a technology that will completely wean the American economy from fossil fuel, but we are not there yet.  Government spending will not help us get there any sooner--the solution is in the creativity and ingenuity of the American people.  The government's role is to make sure the American people have the freedom to be creative.

Friday's Military Times posted an article explaining to its readers what the impact of a government shutdown would be on the military.  They are correct in wanting to keep the military informed, but they really missed a few important points.

At the beginning of January 2010, the Democrats controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency.  In the Senate, after the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, there were 57 Democrats (including Independents who caucused with the Democrats) and 41 Republicans.  In the House of Representatives there were 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans.  The U. S. Government's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30.  Congress is expected to pass a budget bill before the start of the fiscal year.  Budget bills are constitutionally required to begin in the House of Representatives.  The failure to pass a budget for 2011 falls squarely on the shoulders of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in the House of Representatives--they simply did not do their job--they funded the government through temporary measures.  Now they are screaming because the Republicans are introducing spending cuts into those temporary measures.  The President is screaming at Congress and blaming the Republicans because his Democrat party failed to pass a budget while they held the majority.

The Military Times reports:

"When the government was shut down in 1995, military personnel continued to report to work and were paid, but the planning guidance sent to the services and defense agencies says a shutdown this time will be different.

"All military personnel will continue in normal duty status regardless of their affiliation with exempt or non-exempt activities," says the draft planning guidance that was prepared for the services and defense agencies. "Military personnel will serve without pay until such time as Congress makes appropriated funds available to compensate them for this period of service."

"Troops would miss a payday only if the shutdown continues through April 1."

The obvious questions here is, "Why will a shutdown this time be different?"  The government is the one issuing the planning guides--why will the shutdown be different this time? 

More from the Military Times:

"Troops and essential civilians who report for work without pay would receive back pay when government funding is restored. But whether furloughed civilians would receive back pay could depend on whether Congress specifically authorizes that, according to congressional aides who have been doing their own shutdown planning.

"The memo, prepared in early March but never formally issued as guidance, attempts to spell out what defense missions would shut down and what would stay open in the event funding stops."

I have a better idea.  If the government shuts down, let's stop paying Congress (and their staffs) until a budget is passed.  Let's not give them the back pay for the time the government was shut down.  Do you think that might speed up the process?

This article is based on a post by John Hinderaker at Power Line yesterday.  I would also like to add the information that according to Representative John Campbell of California, there is a petition going around the House of Representatives to authorize drilling in ANWR as soon as gasoline hits $5 a gallon.  We live in interesting times.

The President stated, "So any notion that my administration has shut down oil production might make for a good political soundbite, but it doesn't match up with reality."

Power Line reported these statements by the Institute for Energy Research:

"The President's anti-energy policies are a man-made disaster. Try as he may to deflect responsibility away from his own policies, President Obama can't escape from the simple fact that the actions of his administration have dramatically slowed down domestic energy production. As a consequence, his policies are directly responsible for increasing gas prices.

"In 2007, an analysis from the federal government's Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicted that domestic offshore production would be 717.9 million barrels in 2010. As a result of the Obama Administration's policies, it was 600 million. Likewise, the projected onshore production was 132.9 million barrels. Under Obama, it was only 114 million.

"Under President Obama's policies, federal land and water production in 2010 was 136.8 million barrels less than was predicted in 2007, or a 16% drop from what was expected.

"Oil production on federal lands is expected to dramatically decrease as a consequence of President Obama's anti-energy policies. In 2011, EIA estimates that oil production in the federal Gulf of Mexico will fall by 15 percent. In 2012, it will fall by 26 percent from the 2010 production high water mark."

The President stated, "All these actions can increase domestic oil production in the short and medium term. But let's be clear: It is not a long-term solution. Even if we started drilling new wells tomorrow, that oil isn't coming on-line overnight. And even if we tap every single reserve available to us, we can't escape the fact that we only control 2 percent of the world's oil, but we consume over a quarter of the world's oil." 

Well, that depends on how you count. 

The Institute for Energy Research writes:

"In a recent report, CRS [the Congressional Research Service] said that the U.S. has 19.1 billion barrels of proven reserves, which is the number President Obama cites as 2% of the world's oil. CRS, however, showed that between our proven reserves and oil predicted to be found, there is likely to be a combined 164.1 billion barrels, or 8.5 times as much as the president alleges. And this figure doesn't include oil shale, which has recoverable reserves of 1 trillion barrels, according to DOE."

Mr. Hinderaker at Power Line concludes:

"The United States controls vast energy resources--the above numbers don't include our unparalleled coal deposits--but environmentalists, supported by the Democratic Party, have hobbled our economy and our job growth much as the Lilliputians tied down Gulliver with a million bureaucratic regulations.

"With respect to energy, Barack Obama is a fraud. In reality, he is a tool of the environmentalist, anti-growth, anti-wealth Left. But he cannot go before the American people and try to defend policies that are deliberately designed to make us all poorer, so he has to pose as a sort of Sarah Palin in drag. All the while, he is doing everything he can to prevent America from developing its own energy resources, employing many thousands of people in high-paying jobs, boosting our economy, and ending our reliance on the Saudis. If the Obama administration were not a disaster on so many fronts, its energy policies alone would dictate that it be replaced in November 2012."

How long will it be before the American voters realize they are being lied to?

Last week, Life, Inc. reported on the demise of Cap'n Crunch.  This seems like a trivial matter--kid's cereals come and go all the time--but it's not.  Cap'n Crunch seems to be the victim of Michelle Obama's policies to make our children healthier.  Michelle Obama's policies???  Who elected her? 

Cap'n Crunch has12 grams of sugar per serving. 

The article points out:

"Cap'n Crunch was once the No. 1 breakfast cereal, but pressure from the White House and health activists is having an effect on how PepsiCo and other food companies peddle their products to kids. Sales of the cereal were down 6.8 percent in 2010."

Just to complicate things, Ad Age reported on Wednesday:

"Reports of Cap'n Crunch's demise are greatly exaggerated," Quaker said in a statement to Ad Age. "In fact, we just launched an official Facebook page for Cap'n Crunch. Now that our Cap'n Crunch brand is in the social-media space, our adult consumers can stay up to date on all things Cap'n Crunch."

"The rumors apparently started with this article on Daily Finance, which speculated that Quaker was easing the captain into retirement, pointing out that he does not appear on Quaker's main website. And along the choppy seas that is the internet, the story took on a life of its own. A Fox News blog cited the Daily Finance story under the headline "Food Police Kill Cap'n Crunch," playing off the original story's suggestion that pressure from the federal government -- including first lady Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign -- "may explain why the Cap'n is less visable than he was in years past.""

OK.  It looks as if Cap'n Crunch is getting at least a temporary reprieve.  The food police have suffered a temporary setback.  In the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I have never tasted Cap'n Crunch.  I have always been more of a mini-wheats person.  However, it is good to know that the Cap'n will at least be with us for a while longer.

Americans for Prosperity created a chart showing how the Obama Administration has overridden the objections of the American people in moving ahead with President Obama's policies.  If you follow the link above to the chart, you can move your mouse over each square to see the details.

Yesterday Politico reported on some comments made by Senator Ron Paul during an applicance efficiency hearing at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.  Senator Paul was addressing Kathleen Hogan, the DOE deputy assistant secretary.   The Senator asked Ms. Hogan if she was pro-choice.  She answered that she was pro-choice on light bulbs.  At that point, Senator Paul pointed out that she was not pro-choice on light bulbs.  The law requiring all light bulbs sold to be compact fluorescent lights (CFL) goes into effect on January 1st. 

A website called Benzinga.com lists a few of the problems with CFL's:

"When a CFL light bulb is broken it releases high levels of mercury into the air.

"The quality of light produced by CFL bulbs is poorer.

"CFL bulbs are dimmer.

"CFL bulbs tend to flicker and this causes some people to become dizzy or ill.

"CFL have been associated with migraine headaches and sleep abnornalities.

"CFL bulbs are so toxic that they require special disposal.

"The mercury in CFL bulbs is particularly harmful to fetuses and children.

"The amount of mercury in a CFL bulb is enough to make 1,000 gallons of water unsafe for human consumption."

Why in the world is the government forcing us to buy something that is known to be harmful to us?  Why does the government care what kind of light bulbs we use?

We need to get the government out of our light bulb choices! 

The hearings conducted by Peter King, Chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, yesterday stirred up a certain amount of controversy.  Yesterday's Washington Times reported on some of that controversy.

The Washington Times quoted Representative Al Green of Texas:

"REP. Al GREEN:I think that all criminals should be prosecuted. I think that all terrorists should be investigated which is why I said we ought to investigate all of them and that would include the KKK. Over a hundred years of terrorism why not investigate them too. They are rooted in a religion as well. Check their website out. You'll see."

I totally agree with Representative Green that there was a time when the KKK was a major concern in this country.  I have a good friend who grew up in the rural south during the 1940's and 1950's and some of the stories she can tell are harrowing (she is black).  However, it was not the KKK who flew jets into the World Trade Center Towers, it was not the KKK who killed the soldiers at Fort Hood, it was not the KKK that tried to bring down a jet with a shoe bomb, it was not the KKK that tried to set off a bomb in Times Square, and it was not the KKK who tried to bring down a jet with an underwear bomb.  There are more examples, but I am sure you get the picture.

Yesterday, I posted a story (rightwinggranny.com) about the fact that three of the most powerful leaders of Al Qaeda right now are men that are either Americans or spent a significant part of their lives in America.  The danger there is current and needs to be investigated.  The danger from the KKK is not a current threat.  As awful as the things the KKK has done are, investigating them at this point is a waste of time and money.  We can never atone for the awful things the KKK did, but we can vow to be better people in the future and move on.  To remain fixated on events of forty or fifty years ago does no one any good.

This story has two sources--an article at Hot Air posted yesterday, and an article at France 24, also posted yesterday.

The article at France 24 reports:

"France became the first country to formally recognize the Libyan opposition - the Interim Transitional National Council - as legitimate representatives of the Libyan people on Thursday, pledging to exchange ambassadors with the country's newly created transitional council in a major diplomatic victory for the Libyan opposition.

"The announcement followed a meeting between French President Nicolas Sarkozy and two representatives of Libya's Interim Transitional National Council in Paris Thursday

"Speaking to reporters at the Elysée presidential palace in Paris, Ali al Issawi, a former Libyan ambassador to India who quit his post last month, announced that, "France recognises the National Council as the legitimate representative of the Libyan people."

Hot Air reports:

"The recognition comes as European Union foreign ministers meet in Brussels Thursday and defense ministers of NATO's 28 member states also gathered in the Belgian capital to consider the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.

"Ahead of the Brussels meeting, AFP reported that Sarkozy would propose "targeted airstrikes" in Libya as a way to end the violence.

"Reacting to the news of France's diplomatic recognition, Imane Boughaighis, media organizer for Libya's Interim Transitional National Council, said the Libyan people were "very grateful" to the French government."

Hot Air points out that the actions of Europe in support of the Libyan rebels may not result in much military help for the rebels:

"But even if the political will is there, are they capable of doing it? I've been tweeting this idea at military expert (and Weekly Standard contributor) John Noonan and he's skeptical that the EU, even acting in concert, could put together an effective op. Maybe there are 100 combat-ready jets available between them, and maybe you could stage an operation out of Crete or Malta (carriers are hard to come by now that the British navy has essentially been defunded), but there's plenty of intel work to be done first and mobile Libyan air defenses are a major concern. The F-22 can handle them, but European jets? Not so much. So an EU-led mission against Qaddafi is probably a non-starter, which means when Sarkozy boldly recognizes the rebel government and calls for airstrikes, all he's really doing is nudging Obama. It's good domestic politics for him -- showing French leadership in a humanitarian military mission will appeal to the Le Pen "national greatness" crowd on the right and internationalists on the left -- but it's ultimately hollow."

I read this with very mixed emotions.  I am glad to see France attempt to take the lead in protecting the civilians in Libya that are being killed.  Thank God someone was willing to do that.  I am saddened to think that America, who used to lead the world in protecting innocent civilians, has abandoned its post.  I know we are stretched thin right now--I hate to see America send any more soldiers anywhere--but I am saddened at our silence and total lack of action.

No, this is not an article about President Obama.  It is an article in response to the ruckus about Peter King's Congressional Hearings on the radicalization of American Muslims.

Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted an article today about three of the most powerful leaders in Al Qaeda--all of whom were at least partially raised in America. 

Anwar al-Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico, and lived there until he was seven, moving to Yemen.  He returned to America to go to college, studying at Colorado State University and San Diego State.  Mr. al-Awlaki is the spiritual leader of Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).  He consulted with two of the September 11 hijackers and was in contact with the Fort Hood shooter. 

Omar Hammami, aka Abu Mansoor al-Amriki ("the American"), grew up in Daphne, Alabama, just outside of Mobile.  He is the military commander of Al-Shabab/al-Qaeda in East Africa.  He converted to Muslim in high school, left for Somalia, and rose through the ranks of jihad.  He is thought to have recruited more than 20 Americans as suicide bombers.

Adnan Shukrijuman is the current operational commander of al-Qaeda (replacing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed).  He is a Saudi-born naturalized American who lived in Brooklyn for part of his youth and attended college in Florida. 

According to the article:

"Shukrijuma left the country before the Sept. 11 attacks, and trained at an al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan alongside Jose Padilla for a KSM plot to blow up apartment buildings in a major American city using natural gas. In 2002, the CIA began asking al-Qaeda detainees, "Who will be picked to lead the next big attack on America?" Abu Zubaydah, KSM and other detainees all pointed to Shukrijumah. Press reports at the time described Shukrijumah as the "next Mohammed Atta," was believed to have been "anointed the head of a new cell with orders to attack targets inside the United States.""

Mr. Thiessen concludes:

"Bottom line: When three top leaders of the three most virulent al-Qaeda networks are American citizens, it is ridiculous to suggest that the chairman of the House committee responsible for homeland security is out of line to investigate the subject of radicalization in the American Muslim community. Rep. King is not "stoking irrational fears" or "providing fuel for bigots." He is doing his job."

We can either stick our heads in the sand and ignore the facts or we can deal with the problem.  It's better to deal with the problem.

Yesterday the U K Telegraph reported that British Special forces have seized a convoy of Iranian rockets headed for Taliban fighters. 

The article reports:

"Foreign Secretary William Hague said the British ambassador has raised the matter with officials in Tehran.

""I am extremely concerned by the latest evidence that Iran continues to supply the Taliban with weaponry - weapons clearly intended to provide the Taleban with the capability to kill Afghan and ISAF soldiers from significant range," he said.

""It is not the behaviour of a responsible neighbour. It is at odds with Iran's claim to the international community and to its own people that it supports stability and security in Afghanistan.""

I love the British, but I think I prefer the Ronald Reagan approach (think Libya in the 1980's). 

The rockets were manufactured in Iran.  The article also pointed out that the Iranians are Shia and would not like to see the Sunni Taliban take over Afghanistan, but they are providing just enough aid to harass NATO troops.  I suspect part of the logic is to keep the world wrapped up enough in Afghanistan that it will not notice Iran's nuclear program.  Afghanistan is a great distraction while Iran forges ahead with nuclear weapons.

Fox News has reported that Wednesday night Wisconsin Senate Republicans voted to remove collective bargaining rights for state workers. 

According to the article:

"All 14 Senate Democrats fled to Illinois nearly three weeks ago, preventing the chamber from having enough members present to consider Gov. Scott Walker's so-called "budget repair bill" -- a proposal introduced to plug a $137 million budget shortfall.. 

"The Senate requires a quorum to take up any measures that spend money. But Republicans on Wednesday split from the legislation the proposal to curtail union rights, and a special conference committee of state lawmakers approved that bill a short time later

Unfortunately, the three-week vacation of the Senate Democrats showed no signs of ending, so this was the action the Republicans took. 

According to the article:

"State Senate Democratic Minority Leader Mark Miller issued a statement saying, "Tomorrow we will join the people of Wisconsin in taking back their government."

Why should the people of Wisconsin give it back to you when you abandoned it three weeks ago?

Governor Walker ran his campaign for governor stating exactly what he was planning to do in order to balance the budget.  The fleeing Democrats prevented the Republicans from passing the spending part of the bill, but the provisions that were passed last night are expected to help the state balance its budget through keeping pay raises more in line with the cost of living and the economy.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported today that protestors have attempted to shut down the capitol to prevent the State Assembly from voting on the measure the Senate passed last night. 

I am not sure what the public reaction to all this is.  I am a child of the sixties and am generally comfortable with the idea of protest, but this seems to me to be more like a bunch of spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum because they did not get their own way.  I might have a different point of view if the fleeing Democrats had stayed and negotiated or tried to find common ground.  The behavior of the unions has not won me to their cause.

Yesterday's Weekly Standard Blog posted the chart below showing gas prices during the first 26 months of the Obama and Bush administrations.  Obviously, there are worldwide forces at work here, but there are also items that our government does control.

Some of the areas in which the government has impacted energy prices are pointed out in the article:

"This is the President whose administration secretly urged him to bypass needed Congressional approval to create as many at 17 national monuments throughout the west, effectively closing off all that land to energy exploration forever.

"This is the President who has illegally tried to illegally enforce an offshore drilling ban."

Actions have consequences.  The Obama Administration is not an administration that is willing to develop America's carbon energy resources.  Because of that policy, Americans will continue to pay more for their energy needs.  The technology of green energy is not sufficiently developed to replace carbon energy in a way that is either revenue neutral or cost effective.  Until that happens (or we have a new President), we can expect to pay more for all or our energy needs and to increase our energy dependence on countries that dislike us intensely.

These are a few of the slides from Paul Ryan's Budget Presentation.  The pictures explain themselves.  These charts show why we desperately need to cut spending NOW!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Controlling the vocabulary used in the argument can often win the argument.  Newsbusters posted an article yesterday about charges made by MSNBC's Thomas Roberts that the Republicans are planning to engage in 'voter suppression' in the 2012 election.  The list of things included in voter suppression:  "ID requirements, tightening up residency requirements that largely impact college kids, and/or repealing last-minute voter registration at the polls."

This is not a move to suppress the vote--this is a move to prevent the fraud that has, unfortunately, found its way into our voting system.  On September 29,2010, rightwinggranny reported on an investigation into voter fraud in Houston, Texas. 

In that article, I reported:

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

Asking for voter identification is not voter suppression--it is making sure that the idea of 'one man, one vote' is upheld in our elections.  No one is trying to suppress the vote--they are simply attempting to make sure everyone's vote counts equally.

John Hinderaker at Power Line provided me with a statement that I consider yesterday's quote of the day.

Harry Reid is quoted in the article:

"The mean-spirited bill, H.R. 1 ... eliminates the National Endowment of the Humanities, National Endowment of the Arts," said Reid. "These programs create jobs. The National Endowment of the Humanities is the reason we have in northern Nevada every January a cowboy poetry festival. Had that program not been around, the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist."

As an inquiring mind, I would like to know what goes on at the Cowboy Poetry Festival so that without the Festival "the tens of thousands of people who come there every year would not exist."  Is this something that should be investigated?  How is one Cowboy Poetry Festival responsible for the existence of tens of thousands of people?  Is this the cure for the lack of growth in the American population?  How many cowboy poets does it take to create tens of thousands of people?  Wow.  Poetry must be much more popular (and interesting) than I had realized.

Today's Daily Caller posted an article about the government's outreach to Muslim groups.  It's a really good idea to reach out to Muslim groups, but like anything else, you have to know which groups to reach out to. 

The article reports:

""We don't have any contacts in the administration," said Avi Zonneveld, founder of Muslims for Progressive Values, based in Los Angeles.  "The Canadian governmnet is much more accessible," she said."

Meanwhile, one of the groups the government has reached out to is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), which practices orthodox Islam and believes Islamic rules (read Sharia Law) should take precedence over the rules of whatever democracy they may currently be living in.  This doesn't sound like an ideology I want working closely with my government!

"On March 6, for example, Denis McDonough, a White House deputy national security advisor, delivered a speech in Northern Virginia at the All Dulles Area Muslim Society (ADAMS), where he said that "when it comes to preventing violent extremism and terrorism in the United States, Muslim Americans are not part of the problem, you're part of the solution."

"Yet the head cleric at the mosque, Mohamed Magid, is also president of the ISNA, which was founded by Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the United States, and which has cooperated with other brotherhood-affiliated groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations. A federal judge in July 2009 concluded that CAIR has associations with Hamas, which is both an Islamist terror group and an affiliate of the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood."

As I have pointed out before, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Case. 

The Middle East Forum posted an article in 2006 stating:

"But there is another side to CAIR that has alarmed many people in positions to know. The Department of Homeland Security refuses to deal with it. Senator Charles Schumer (Democrat, New York) describes it as an organization "which we know has ties to terrorism."[3] Senator Dick Durbin (Democrat, Illinois) observes that CAIR is "unusual in its extreme rhetoric and its associations with groups that are suspect."[4] Steven Pomerantz, the FBI's former chief of counterterrorism, notes that "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups."[5] The family of John P. O'Neill, Sr., the former FBI counterterrorism chief who perished at the World Trade Center, named CAIR in a lawsuit as having "been part of the criminal conspiracy of radical Islamic terrorism"[6] responsible for the September 11 atrocities. Counterterrorism expert Steven Emerson calls it "a radical fundamentalist front group for Hamas."[7]"

Please follow the link above the read the entire article and check out the footnotes.  Our government is either very naive or very stupid.  Both are dangerous in the current situation.

Representative Nancy Pelosi stated, "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."

Well, every day we learn something new.  Maybe some day some of it will be good, but right now, it's not.

Two of the sources for this article are a post at Representative  Michele Bachmann's website from Friday, and a post at Human Events on February 15th.

The issue is a whether or not the House of Representatives (which according to the Constitution initiates all legislation regarding spending) can defund Obamacare.

According to Human Events:

"Some don't realize that last year's Congress did appropriate money for ObamaCare, even though it failed to pass appropriations bills for anything else.  The billions appropriated for ObamaCare are outlined in Congressional Research Service Report R41301, "Appropriations and Fund Transfers in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)," issued on Oct. 14."

The third source, The Heritage Foundation, reports:

"One of Obamacare's most egregious insults to the rule of law is its effort to take away the power of the current Congress, future Congresses, and future Presidents to decide what level of funding--if any--its programs should receive. The law does this by including billions of dollars in actual appropriations of funds for future years.

"As the CRS (Congressional Research Service)  notes, Obamacare "contains two types of budgetary provisions in relation to the new entities created by or through the legislation. Several of the provisions directly provide funding (referred to as "direct spending"), bypassing the annual appropriations process, through techniques such as multi-year or permanent appropriations. Some of these provisions also impose other requirements or conditions. (11). 

One example cited by the CRS in a related report (12) is an advance appropriation of $6 billion in Obamacare's Section 1322, requiring the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a "Consumer Operated and Oriented Plan (CO-OP)," better known as the insurance "exchange" program. The statute does not specify how much of the $6 billion is designated for each fiscal year, presumably giving a blank check to Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to spend when and how she likes."

Please follow the links above to read the entire articles at the Heritage Foundation and the other sources.  This bill was passed in a way that was a slap in the face to the voters and now we are finding out that the way it is to be implemented is a slap in the face to the U. S. Constitution.

On Sunday, Milwaukee radio station 620 WTMJ's website analyzed the new WPRI poll showing Governor Walker with a 43 percent approval rating.  The first thing that the story points out about the poll is that it oversamples Democrats and union households. 

The article points out some of the findings of the poll that were not immediately obvious:

"The poll says voters oppose Walker's budget plan by a 46% to 51% margin. But: An overwhelmingly majority -- 81% said that public employees should be required to contribute to their own pensions."

The article also points out that how you ask the question determines the answer:

I would love to live in a world of nonpolluting renewable energy, but I don't think we are there yet.  Spain had to abandon its green energy policy because of the jobs lost and the economic hardship the policy caused.  In June 2010 the Motor City Times reported the details of Spain's failed green energy policy. 

The article reports:

"Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates "necessarily skyrocketed" in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration's recent acknowledgment that the "green economy" stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.

"The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain's "green economy" program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job "created" by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study.

"This document is not a public report. Spanish media has referred to its existence in recent weeks though, while Bloomberg and the Washington Examiner have noted the impact: Spain is now forced to jettison its plans -- Obama's model -- for a "green economy." (emphasis added)"

On Sunday, Power Line reported on how California's green energy programs have impacted the community college system in Southern California.

The article at Power Line reports:

"Given the cost of alternative energy technology, it would be more expensive for the district to generate all its own electricity than to continue paying utilities for power. . . One thing was for sure: No matter how it was financed, the bill for all those solar panels and wind turbines would be huge. Eisenberg's cost estimates for taking the nine campuses off the grid ranged as high as $975 million -- this for a college system that in 2010 spent less than $8 million on power bills. An engineering consultant put the cost far higher: $1.9 billion. . . Plans for large-scale wind power collided with the reality that prevailing winds at nearly all the campuses are too weak to generate much electricity. To date, a single wind turbine has been installed, as a demonstration project. It spins too slowly in average winds to power a 60-watt light bulb."

Yesterday a website called Climatide reported on the progress of a wind project in Falmouth, Massachusetts.  Wind One is Falmouth's first wind turbine.  Neil Anderson lives about a quarter mile from Wind One.  Mr Anderson is a believer in alternate energy sources and has operated a passive solar energy company on Cape Cod.  However, he is not a fan of Wind One. 

The article reports:

"But now, as many as 50 people are complaining about the turbine and the noise it makes at different speeds. A dozen families are retaining a lawyer for that reason.

""It is dangerous. Headaches. Loss of sleep. And the ringing in my ears never goes away. I could look at it all day, and it does not bother me. It's quite majestic -- but it's way too close," Anderson said."

I don't know what the effects of the wind farm offshore will be--whether or not the wind farm will be close enough for residents of the area will be impacted by the noise.

The bottom line here is simple--the devil you know versus the devil you don't know.  We need to take a really good look at alternative energy before we abandon our sources of conventional energy.

Admittedly it has been a long learning curve, but President Obama has made a very wise decision--both for the American people and for the safety of the world.

The Hill reported today that the Obama Administration has announced that trials by military commission will resume at Guantánamo Bay. 

The article reports:

"In a fact sheet, the White House said Obama "remains committed" to closing the facility, but the president's decision to lift the ban on military commissions signals the unlikelihood that Obama will successfully transfer all of the prisoners in Cuba."

Guantanamo Bay represents a unique legal problem.  Because it is not on United States soil, the prisoners cannot claim all the rights that they would receive in a civilian court in America.  One of the things that makes these trials nearly impossible in civil courts in America are the disclosure of evidence rules.  In trying terrorists in American civilian courts with full American citizen's rights, we would have to show where and how we got the information to convict them.  In some cases it would mean disclosing wiretap information or other classified information gathering tools.  Because we are still engaged in a war on terror, this is not a wise move.

Military tribunals are equipped to handle the problems that arise with imprisoned terrorists.  These terrorists themselves are a problem.  The New York Times reported in May of 2009 that one in seven freed Guantanamo detainees have returned to terrorism.  Many have returned to terrorism after having completed the Saudi rehabilitation program.

I have no idea what the answer is.  I don't like the idea of the death penalty, but what else do you do with the man who planned the September 11th attack?  I don't like the idea of keeping people away from their homeland and whatever families they may have for the rest of their lives, but I don't want to release someone who is simply going home to fight Americans or kill civilians.

There really isn't a nice, clear-cut answer to what to do with terrorists, and Guantanamo and military tribunals seems to be the most practical.  I am glad that the President has chosen that path.

On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line about how the Obama Administration is handling recent events in the Middle East. 

In a speech to a group of Jewish donors in Miami on Friday, President Obama stated:

"All the forces that we see building in Egypt are the forces that should be naturally aligned with the US, [and] should be aligned with Israel."

Wow.  That is an amazing statement when you consider the recent events in Egypt.  Let's look at two of those events:

Egyptian protesters shouted "Jew, Jew" as they stripped Lara Logan naked and beat her with poles.

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qardawi returned to Egypt after having been exiled for almost 30 years.  Al-Qardawi supports suicide bombings and has stated, "Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption.  The last punishment was carried out by Hitler."  On February 18th al-Qardawi addressed the crowd at Tahrir Square.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see these statements or actions as an indication of friendship toward Israel.

The article at Power Line points out:

"Paul Pillar, a longtime CIA analyst who now teaches at Georgetown University, said, "Most of the people in the intelligence community would see things on this topic very similarly to the president - that is, political Islam as a very diverse series of ideologies, all of which use a similar vocabulary, but all quite different.""

John Hinderaker draws a very logical conclusion from that comment:

"One is left speechless. Turmoil in the Middle East promises a set of new regimes; the optimistic scenario, apparently, is that they will be dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood rather than al Qaeda. And the main problem this will pose for the President will come from the Republicans! And, of course--but why?--those pesky Israelis. We can describe this charitably as a remarkably Washington-centric view.

"All of this reinforces the sense that the Obama administration and the foreign policy establishment are without a clue and without a plan as they watch events unfold."

Unfortunately, the events will not wait for the Obama Administration to 'get a clue.'  We may be in for a very rough ride.

The website The Economic Populist posted a story on March 4th explaining how the unemployment numbers have gone down even through more people are unemployed.  It has to do with changes made in the way the numbers are calculated, and with a number called the 'labor force participation rate.'  Please follow the link above--there are a number of graphs that illustrate what is happening.

The key paragraphs from the article:

"How can the unemployment rate decrease so dramatically when not enough jobs were added to even cover population growth? Because the people the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) counts dramatically decreased, they didn't disappear, but are re-categorized as not in the labor force.

"The civilian labor force increased by +147,000. Of those still in the civilian labor force, employed, increased by 250,000 in February, yet those unemployed dropped by -190,000. Those not in the labor force increased by +87,000 in a month. What we see here are people simply dropping out of the count and less people entered the labor force...looking for work, officially.

"The civilian non-institutional population are those 16 years or older not locked up somewhere or not in the military or so sick and disabled they are in a nursing home and so on.

"The civilian non-institutional population rose by 147,000 last month. The civilian population now stands at 238,851,000. Not in the labor force are those of the civilian non-institutional population who are not counted as looking for work or having a job. Yet those not in the labor force stands as a horrifying 85,605,000, or 36% of the non-institutional civilian population. An equally horrific 13,673,000 people of the official tally are out looking for work."

That is how you make the unemployment number go down while the same number (or more) of people are unemployed.

This is one of the charts in the article.  Notice that recent recessions were much longer under Democrat administrations.

Iranium, New Documentary on Nuclear Iran March 16 in Stoughton

Policy Expert is Featured Speaker

Stoughton, MA--(March 7, 2011)--Strategic policy and intelligence expert Claire M. Lopez will speak at a showing of the documentary Iranium Wednesday, March 16 at 7:30 p.m. at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, MA.  Lopez, who is interviewed in the film, is an expert in Middle East, national defense, and counterterrorism issues. A senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she has served with the CIA, as a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, and as Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee.  Admission is $10. 

Iranium was made by the Clarion Fund, a non-profit organization that produces documentaries on threats to national security.  The film premiered in various locations throughout the US in February.  With rarely seen footage, the film depicts the brutal reality of the regime in Tehran, and the threat it presents to its own people, to Israel, to the U.S. and to the rest of the world.  The filmmakers stress that while Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has never hesitated to declare his intentions to destroy the West and to spread Islam and Sharia law throughout the world, American and European leaders continue to misread his intentions.  Interviews with experts on the Middle East, terrorism, and nuclear politics give a clear explanation of the dangerous mix of the radical ideology and goals of the Iranian regime and its potential as a nuclear power.  For information go to www.atorah.org, call 781-344-8733 or e-mail office@atorah.org.

Thursday's Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama Administration has stated that it may have to reject seven permits for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico if a federal judge in New Orleans forces them to make a quick decision. 

The article reports:

"In court filings late Friday, the Interior Department said the permit applications are flawed or incomplete, and that Judge Martin Feldman's order that it decide on them before the end of the month disrupts the normal back-and-forth negotiations between oil companies and federal regulators."

This is garbage.  The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement has issued one drilling permit since the BP explosion in April of last year. 

The bottom line here is simple.  As the Middle East erupts in flames and there is a strong possiblity that the countries that supplied America with oil will no longer be friends of America, the Obama Administration is cutting back domestic production of oil.  If have said before that unless this Administration changes its domestic energy policy, we will be paying upwards of $5 a gallon at the gas pumps.  Unfortunately, that is rapidly becoming a reality.  The rapidly rising cost of gasoline has the potential to end any economic recovery we may now be experiencing.  The answer to America's energy needs are within our own country if we would develop them.  Developing them would also lead us out of the current economic challenges we are experiencing.  It is unfortunate that the green special interest groups and the Obama Administration have prevented that from happening.

On Thursday, the Times Picayune in New Orleans posted a story about a report given to Mayor Mitch Landrieu by consultant David Osborne regarding dysfunction in the government of New Orleans.  The report also included a ten-point plan to correct the problems.

According to the Public Strategies Group website:

"David (Osborne) is a senior partner of The Public Strategies Group, a consulting firm that helps public organizations develop and implement strategies to improve their performance. He has worked with governments large and small, from cities and counties to states, federal agencies, and foreign governments."

The article in the Times Picayune explains:

"Unlike the mayor's top policy priorities -- reducing crime, eliminating blight, improving education and creating jobs -- the actions proposed by PSG are designed to overhaul the way City Hall manages its employees, provides public services and spends money, Kopplin said. Among the fixes, which Osborne predicted will take three to five years to implement, are improving customer service, developing performance measures, reforming the contracting process, implementing a sophisticated data-tracking system and boosting revenue collection."

The report listed ten areas that could be corrected, and city officials have assigned a person to be in charge of dealing with each area.  Many of the areas mentioned are areas that all cities and towns could improve--they include such things as developing performance and accountability standards for employees, consolidating human resources and personnel functions, and reforming civil service rules.

New Orleans is a wonderful city.  It is an amazing place to visit--the street art and street music are fantastic.  It is a city rich in culture and culturally unique in America because of its strong French roots.  It would be wonderful to see the government of the city function more efficiently and the people of the city prosper.

The following is a press release from Representative Tom Price of Georgia:

Washington, D.C. - House Republican Policy Committee Chairman Tom Price, M.D. (R-GA) issued the following statement after the Obama Administration announced that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.

"Millions of Americans are still out of work and our economy is under considerable strain thanks to the burdens imposed by the Obama Administration's debt-inducing agenda in Washington," said Chairman Price. "Rather than focus its attention on working with Republicans to cut spending and get our economy moving again, the administration is diverting its attention and abandoning the government's defense of marriage. This announcement by the Obama Administration is a political move at a time when the American people need leaders in Washington working together to solve our great challenges. Those who have fought to redefine marriage have often relied on the court to legislate from the bench rather than through their duly elected representatives in both Congress and state legislatures. Today's action by the White House will only encourage others to use the courts as a springboard to enact an agenda outside the legislative branches of government. Once again, this demonstrates a woeful lack of leadership on the part of the president and his administration."

As you may remember, the Defense of Marriage Act was passed by a vote of 85-14 in the United States Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives.  It was signed into law by a Democrat president, Bill Clinton.  President Obama has recently stated that he would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), that defines marriage as only between a man and a woman.  Regardless of how you feel about DOMA, it is the duty of the President to encourage the enforcement of existing laws--not to pick and choose which laws he likes.  We have a President--not a king.  Although this may insure that the President gets the support of the people who oppose DOMA, refusing to defend a legally passed law is not good for the country.  I am glad to see someone in Congress speaking out about this.

Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.

~Ronald Wilson Reagan

Regardless of where you stand on the issue of abortion, this is a sobering statistic.  According to the Guttmacher Institute about one-third of the women in the United States will have had an abortion by the time they are 45.  The Institute also reports that In New York, 468,900 of the 4,045,215 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2008. 53% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 33% in induced abortions.

These are sobering statistics.

On January 18th of this year, CNS News reported an a Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit that stated:

"nearly 41 percent of all federal purchase card transactions from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006, failed basic control checks" and the presentation includes case studies where a "U.S. Postal Service employee spent $1,100 on Internet dating services over a 15-month period" and "$13,000 - Dinner and alcohol for 81 at Ruth's Chris".

If you follow the above link to the article, there is a link in the article to the powerpoint presentation about the fraud in government credit card use.  As we debate cutting government spending, it is interesting to note that the Federal Purchase Card Program went from less than $1 billion in 1994 to more than $19 billion in 2009.  Since there is a strong possibility that 41 percent of that money was not legitimately spent, that might be a really good place to start cutting the federal budget. 

The article at CNS News lists a few of the credit card abuses (totaling about $5,350):

-       Erotica Products ('Condoms to Go', 'Pleasure Zone')

-       Girls Gone Wild videos ('GGW Videos')

-       1- week Caribbean vacation ('Vacation Express')

-       Five season football tickets ('New Orleans Saints')"

I guess Saints tickets are cheap. I live in New England--Patriots tickets are not!

The article further lists some of the expenditures:

"The reports also reveal additional federal debit card use for $600 at a Texas gentlemen's club, $3,700 worth of purchases at a jewelry store, $400 at a massage parlor and $450 dollars for an arm tattoo."

This might be a really good place to begin cutting the federal budget--better control of the debit cards!

This is a graph from The Tax Foundation:

When we listen to people complaining that the rich are not paying their fair share, we need to keep this graph in mind.  Generally speaking, the share of the tax burden paid by the bottom 95 percent of taxpayers has dropped from almost 60 percent in 1967 to less than 40 percent in 2007.  Meanwhile, the share of the tax burden of the top 1 percent of taxpayers has gone from about 29 percent to over 40 percent.  This is not good news if we expect the economy to grow in the future.  What we are essentially doing is punishing success.  Just in case the thought has crossed your mind, I am not (and will probably never be) in the top 1 percent of taxpayers.  In that sense, I don't have a horse in this race.  However, what has happened in America due to the expansive entitlement programs enacted in the late 1960's is that the middle class taxpayer (that's most of us) are the ones paying the bills. 

On April 7, 2010, Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story that stated:

"About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That's according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization."

In simple terms, that means there are too many people in the wagon and too few people pulling the wagon.  We need to find a way to change that.

Sometimes people simply tell the truth because that is their style.  That happened recently when NASCAR racer Dale Earnhardt Jr. commented on the Chevy Volt.  According to CNS News yesterday, Mr. Earnhardt said:

"I think that the Chevy Volt's a good product. I think that the consumers need to understand how difficult it is to produce a car with the standards that they have, with the guidelines that they have today, that can actually do what the consumer wants and what the consumer expects."

"The technology isn't there yet really to provide the consumer with something that can go a little bit further than that [in mileage] and do a little bit better job with that," said Earnhardt.  "But as the technology gets better, batteries and such things like that get safer to where they can be more heavily charged and the mileage can be a little bit longer.  That's down the pike -- but for where we are today, it's a pretty good product in my mind,"

Somehow, I don't think that was what the government wanted to hear, since they are responsible for the subsidies that make the Volt possible. 

The article further reports:

"Consumer Reports said the Volt it tested got 23 to 28 miles per charge and cost $48,700. "For now, it seems that owning a Volt is an expensive way to be green," said the review."

Mr. Earnhardt made his remarks at the National Guard Youth Foundation's ChalleNGe Champions gala on Tuesday,

The Daily Caller posted a story yesterday about the ongoing court battle against Obamacare.  On January 31, Judge Roger Vinson ruled that Obamacare was unconstitutional.  Because the Obama Administration ignored his ruling and continued implementing the law, the Judge has issued another ruling.

The article reports:

"Now, Vinson has given the Obama administration an ultimatum to either stop implementing the law, or appeal it--presumably to the Supreme Court.  It is unclear what will happen if the administration ignores that order."

Several states have stopped implementing the law since it was declared unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the plot thickens...Today's Daily Caller posted a report on the appearance of Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) before the House Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.  In her testimony, Secretary Sebelius admitted that $500 billion was double counted in the Obamacare law. 

Republican Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois questioned Secretary Sebelius about whether the $500 billion in Medicare cuts were to preserve Medicare or pay for Obamacare.  Secretary Sebelius answered, "Both."   

Wow.  Remind me never to give that lady access to my checkbook.  Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."  I guess she was right.  If I ran my household budget that way, I would have been broke a long time ago.  Now the government is trying to help me get there.

Fox News reported today that today is the day that Iran officially takes its place on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.  Iran, you know, that country that will arrest and beat a woman for a fashion violation.  Not a single UN member (including the United States) has objected.  Meanwhile, on March 2, ibnlive.in.com reported that "The United Nations General Assembly has unanimously voted to suspend Libya from the UN Human Rights Council in the wake of continuing attacks on pro-democracy protesters there by Muammar Gaddafi's regime."  I guess I need someone to explain to me what the difference between the way Iran treats protestors and the way Libya treats protestors.  Admittedly, Iran doesn't use planes, it shoots people down in the streets, but that seems a rather unimportant distinction.

The article at Fox also lists some of the more interesting countries that remain on some of the United Nations' committees:

U.. N. Human Rights Council  -  Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Angola

U. N. Commission on the States of Women  -  The Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran

U. N. Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice  -  Libya, Russia, Sudan, Iran, The Democratic Republic of Congo, Pakistan

The article lists more, but you get the idea.  The UN needs to be moved out of New York and America needs to withdraw its membership.

Yesterday, two American soldiers were killed at the Frankfort Airport in Germany.  Today's U K Telegram reported:

"Witnesses heard 21-year-old Arif Uka make the cry "God is the greatest" in English as he launched Wednesday's attack on a busload of US military personnel, increasing the likelihood that it was motivated by radical Islamist beliefs."

The suspect is an Albanian Muslim from Kosovo who is reported to have been radicalized 'in the last few weeks.'  Hesse state Interior Minister Boris Rhein has told the news that the suspect acted alone and was not a part of a larger terrorist network.

CNS News reported today that:

"...But he (the suspect's uncle, Rexhep Uka) said the family was pro-American and was also having a hard time imagining that their nephew was involved.

""I love the Americans because they helped us a lot in times of trouble," he told The Associated Press in Kosovo. "I had an American neighbor and we never had a problem. What happened in Germany is beyond me."

"Behxhet Uka, a cousin of the suspect, said he had spoken to the gunman's father in Frankfurt by telephone several times. The family told him that they only knew that their son did not come home from work at the Frankfurt airport on Wednesday.

""We heard about this from the local police, and it was confirmed that this shooter was my first cousin," he said. "I would hope that this is not true, but if it is true, it will be very hard for us here in Kosovo. We could not imagine something like this would happen because Americans are our brothers.""

The comment that interested me was the comment that Arif Uka had been radicalized in the last few weeks.  This is the true cause for concern.  What was he taught that caused him to do what he did?  What is the root of the action?  We need to answer that question and then attack the root.

The Washington Examiner posted an article yesterday on some of the government spending plans of President Obama and Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood.  President Obama is asking for an 84 percent increase over 2010 levels in the Department of Transportation Budget for 2012. 

The article reports:

"The man Obama appointed in 2009 to manage the Transportation Department is former Illinois Republican Rep. Ray LaHood, who a few months ago promised to put cars and bicycles on "an equal footing" in federal funding decisions."

Try fitting your family on a bicycle for a family outing!  How will that work with an aging population? 

The article points out that the ultimate goal of the thinking behind funding 'big things,' as President Obama and Security LaHood propose, instead of funding 'traditional things' like roads and bridges, is to force people to move to cities where mass transit is readily available.  The difference here is very simple, yet very stark--mass transit tells you where you go and when you go; people in private cars have the freedom to decide where and when they go.  This is ultimately an issue of personal freedom.

One example of misspent government money is the Dulles Rail project now being built in Northern Virginia.  Phase I of this project will cost the government $900 million.  The Federal Transit Administration predicts that the finished line will attract only 10,000 new daily riders and is not expected to impact the miserable traffic that the area is known for.    

The article concludes:

"Policies that reduce American's mobility also dramatically shrink their access to new job opportunities, which is crucial to wealth production in a dynamic economy.  Mobility equals freedom, but under the Obama administration's latest transportation proposal, taxpayers will pay more for less of both."

Mass transportation projects are not the answer to either America's energy problems or her unemployment problem. 

Today the Heritage Foundation in its The Foundry section posted an article about the rising cost of gasoline in America.  The article pointed out that although the unrest in Libya has some impact on the cost of oil (which went over $100 a barrel today), the upward trend in price is largely due to the increased demand for oil around the world. 

The article reports:

"...long before the recent protests even began, analysts were predicting $4 a gallon by this summer and $5 a gallon by 2012. Anyone could have predicted that the recovering world economy, coupled with the continued growth of India and China, was going to push oil prices higher. So if an Administration wanted to keep gas prices down, they could have mitigated increased oil demand by increasing domestic oil production. But that is not what the Obama Administration has done. Instead of increasing domestic oil supplies, the Obama Administration has cut them at every opportunity, and Americans are now suffering because of those choices."

In February, as the unrest in Egypt was unfolding, Energy Secretary Steven Chu was asked what the Obama Administration could do to control the rising price of oil, his reply, "The best way America can protect itself against these incidents is to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, in fact to diversify our supply."   The question then becomes what he meant by the phrase 'diversify our supply.'   The Obama Administration's definition of a diverse energy supply is corn, wind, solar, and electric cars.  Some of these ideas may be practical in the future, but as of right now, when we need a diverse energy supply, they will not do the job. 

The article points out:

"The major source of biomass production, corn-based ethanol, produces less energy per unit volume than gasoline, contributes to food price increases, costs taxpayers $4 billion to produce 2 percent of the total gasoline supply, and has dubious environmental effects. The electric cars the Obama Administration has invested in are prohibitively costly, do not fit the needs of the American consumer, and are also environmentally suspect. The other sources of energy the Obama Administration is subsidizing and promoting--wind and solar--not only make up a minuscule 1 percent of America's electricity generation but are entirely irrelevant to gasoline supply in the transportation sector."

The policies of the Obama Administration have not allowed America to develop its carbon-based energy sources.  Until this week, no drilling permits had been issued in the Gulf of Mexico since the BP spill (meanwhile President Obama supports offshore drilling for Brazil - see Wall Street Journal article of August 18, 2009).  Interior Secretary Ken Salazar canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah in his first month in office.  Last fall, Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years.

America has the resouces and the ability to have a thriving economy.  One of the current drags on the economy is the high price of gasoline.  Developing our own natural resources would employ Americans, end our dependency on foreign oil, and fuel our economy.  It's unfortunate that this Administration is unwilling to do that.

Yesterday Politico reported on the House Appropriations subcommittee hearing involving the investigation into the Justice Department's handling of the voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers in Philadelphia. 

The article reports:

""Think about that," Holder said. "When you compare what people endured in the South in the 60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, and to compare what people were subjected to there to what happened in Philadelphia--which was inappropriate, certainly that...to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who put their lives on the line, who risked all, for my people," said Holder, who is black."

So let me make an attempt to understand that remark.  The voter intimidation in Philadelphia does not rise to the level of the fight for the African American vote in the South, so it's not noteworthy.  Sorry, Mr. Holder, to me, a man threatening me with a billy club at a polling place sends a message that my physical safety may be in danger.  I am your basic little old lady, and I would find a tall man with a club who was not a policeman rather intimidating.  The fact that your Justice Department refused to take this event seriously enough to charge the defendents and put them in jail (particularly when you consider that the video of the event went viral on YouTube) tells me that you do not take my right to vote seriously. 

The article further reports:

"In a series of questions and comments earlier in the hearing, (Representative John) Culberson insisted that race had infected the decision-making process. "There's clearly evidence, overwhelming evidence, that your Department of Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than African Americans to vote," the Texas Republican said. "There's a pattern of a double standard here.""

One of the heroes (although possibly reluctantly) of the Civil Rights Movement was Lyndon B. Johnson.  President Johnson is quoted as saying, "Until justice is blind to color, until education is unaware of race, until opportunity is unconcerned with the color of men's skins, emancipation will be a proclamation but not a fact."  Mr. Holder's Justice Department has not advanced the cause of Civil Rights, it has slowed it down.

The government is spending more than it is taking in.  That is not a sustainable practice.  The freshman class of the House of Representatives was elected largely because they wanted to cut spending and balance the budget.  The Democrats, keeping in character, are fighting spending cuts and talking about taking more money from 'the rich.'  This is a very predictable battle. 

Meanwhile, CNS News reported yesterday that a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that was released on Tuesday cited waste and duplication in the federal government's many programs, agencies, offices and initiatives.

The article at CNS News reports:

"The report (titled Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue) is intended to help government policymakers deal with "rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our national government," the GAO said.

"The report aims to (1) identify federal programs or functions where unnecessary duplication, overlap, or fragmentation exists; and identify the actions needed to address such conditions as well as the potential benefits of doing so; and (2) highlight other opportunities for potential cost savings or enhanced revenues.

"The GAO report includes 81 areas for consideration."

The GAO is required by law to make this report.  Some of the areas mentioned in the report included adding revenue by developing domesting energy resources, selling buildings that federal agencies no longer use, and cutting costs by combining various agencies that have overlapping duties.

We need to cut federal spending.  Ending duplication might be a good place to start. 

The question all of us need to ask is, "What brings peace?"  What are the lessons of history?  When Neville Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement on September 29,1938, he had the best of intentions.  His goal was to avoid war and to bring peace to Europe.  We all know how well that turned out.

Today, the Palestinians are asking for a state of their own (we can overlook the fact that they were given 80 percent of the land originally promised to Israel in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 as their own state).  The country they were given is today known as Jordan.  Nevertheless, there is not peace in the Middle East, and generally speaking, Israel gets blamed for being intransigent.

Well, what is the problem?  I don't claim to have all the answers, but I have a few ideas.  A website called Israeli Frontline lists the rocket attacks on Israel from the Palestinians each month.  The previous link is to the list of attacks in February.  Now maybe I'm missing something, but I think rockets aimed at civilian populations might in some way inhibit the peace process.  Until the rockets stop coming and the people shooting them want to make peace, peace is not possible.  Peace in Europe during the 1940's was achieved after the aggressor state (Germany) was soundly defeated and had no choice but surrender and cooperate.  Germany has since become an upstanding member of the world community of nations.  There is a lesson to be learned here.  Until those forces within the Palestinian community who desire to destroy Israel are soundly defeated, there will be no peace in the Middle East.  Another way to look at the situation is to ask the following two questions, "If all of the Arab nations surrounding Israel gave up their weapons, what would happen?  If the nation of Israel gave up her weapons, what would happen?"  The answer to those two questions tells you all you need to know about why there is no peace in the Middle East.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

 Benjamin Franklin

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the American response to what is happening in Libya.  Mr. Hinderaker cites a Peter Wehner article at Commentary Magazine in which Mr. Wehner makes the case that the cautious response to the situtation in Libya  by the Obama Administration may have dangerous consequences.

The Washington Post ran a story Sunday that stated that diplomats in Tripoli had informed the Obama Administration to be careful in their reaction to the Libyan situation in order not to endanger the lives of Americans in Libya. 

Mr. Wehner pointed out in his article:

""Overruling that kind of advice would be a very difficult and dangerous thing to do," said Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. "That was the debate, and frankly we erred on the side of caution, for certain, and at the cost of some criticism," he continued. "But when you're sitting in government and you're told that ignoring that advice could endanger American citizens, that's a line you don't feel very comfortable crossing."

"The Obama administration's position assumes that Muammar Qaddafi needs a pretext to kill Americans. He actually doesn't. He has done so in the past, and he could just as easily do so now, regardless of what kind of "messaging" emerges from our government."

The danger here is setting the precedent that America will not act if American citizens might be in danger or that there are no consequences for killing or mistreating American citizens.  We have already set this precedent by refusing to do anything about the two American hikers held by Iran since July 31, 2009.  Shane Bauer, 27, his girlfriend, Sarah Shourd, 31, and their friend Joshua Fattal, 27 were detained and put in jail for allegedly crossing an unmarked border.  Since then, the three have been accused of spying and placed in Tehran's Evin Prison.  Sarah Shourd was freed on September 14, 2010.  There is a debate as to whether or not a ransom was paid or who paid it.  We may have to wait for a new President in order to see these hostages freed.

The Central Asia Development Group is an organization working in Afghanistan whose goal is to increase the level of economic and social stability and hopefully decrease the loss of life by reducing people's motivation to fight. Matthew Goldthwaite posted an article on the group's blog about one of his recent trips to the Chora District, Urozgan Province, Afghanistan.

The article explains:

"It isn't every day that you get to begin a meeting with your host telling you, "Thank you for risking your lives to come meet with us today." These were the words spoken to me today by Gul Agha, governor of Chora district in Urozgan province, as we met with him and other community leaders to discuss the selection process for laborers participating in a CADG implemented development program on behalf of the Australian Government's Overseas Aid program (AUSAID)."

"When the Governor said this, it was not a new realization to me that that my colleagues and I had risked our lives to get to this meeting. In fact, the danger was ever present in my mind for the duration of the two hour road trip, without armored vehicles or military escorts, across a dirt high-desert road that resembled a lunar landscape, separating Tarin Kowt from Chora. The danger was even more apparent when I was informed that insurgents had attacked Chora the previous evening and the road we were traveling on had claimed over a hundred lives due to insurgent attacks in the past year alone."

In the article Mr. Goldthwaite explains the work of the Central Asia Development Group and how the group attempts to help build an infrastructure in Afghanistan while providing jobs for people and helping bring unity to the many tribal factions.  Please follow the link above to read the entire article.  This may be one way to bring peace to Afghanistan.

Yesterday the U. K. Guardian reported that Rajib Karim was convicted by a jury at Woolwich crown court of plotting to blow up a plane during the time he was working for British Airways (BA).  Mr. Karim is described as a disciple of the Yemen-based radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki.  Anwar al-Awlaki was born in the United States and is of Yemeni descent.

According to the article:

"Police took months to break encrypted messages on his computer. They found he had been in direct contact with Awlaki, who is accused of having links to the attempted bombing of a plane over Detroit during Christmas in 2009 and an attempt last year to explode ink printer bombs on freight planes heading to the US.

"Karim, who worked for BA in Newcastle, studied electronics at Manchester University from 1998 to 2002 where he gained a 2.2. He then went back to his native Bangladesh, where he supported an extremist organisation."

I don't consider myself a violent person, but it seems to me that Awlaki is attempting to sponsor terrorism around the world.  Could a well-placed predator drone end that effort?  Is it better to kill one man who is declaring war on civilians in western countries than to allow the continued attempt to kill innocent civilians?

A few weeks ago, on February 14th, Watson, a super computer from IBM, made his debut on the television show Jeopardy.  After three days of competition, he won $77,147.  His two opponents won $24,000 and $21,600.  They weren't even close.

Yesterday Watson tried again against some of our Congressmen in Washington.  According to the Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire Blog and the Asbury Park Press (Asbury Park, New Jersey), this time Watson lost.  Watson lost to Representative Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat.  Representative Holt was a five-time Jeopardy winner more than 30 years ago.  He commented that Watson was "just a little Atari."  

According to Representative Holt's website:

Rep. Holt earned his B.A. in Physics from Carleton College in Minnesota and completed his Master's and Ph.D. at NYU. He has held positions as a teacher, Congressional Science Fellow, and arms control expert at the U.S. State Department where he monitored the nuclear programs of countries such as Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and the former Soviet Union. From 1989 until he launched his 1998 congressional campaign, Holt was Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory, the largest research facility of Princeton University and the largest center for research in alternative energy in New Jersey. He has conducted extensive research on alternative energy and has his own patent for a solar energy device.   

That explains a lot!  It's nice to know that a human can actually defeat a computer on Jeopardy.