April 2011 Archives

There was a small dust-up this week between the President and Carla Marinucci, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. 

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

"White House officials have banished one of the best political reporters in the country from the approved pool of journalists covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.

"The Chronicle's Carla Marinucci - who like many contemporary reporters, has a phone with video capabilities on her at all times - shot some protestors interrupting an Obama fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel."

I really do understand the fact that the President does not appreciate protestors.  He has not shown a gracious attitude to anyone who disagrees with him on anything, but peaceful protest is legal in America and reporting that protest is part of the media's job.

However, the story does not end here.  Neither Press Secretary Jay Carney or anyone at the White House will speak on the record about the banishment of Ms. Marinucci.  Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee reported that people in the White House communications office told him that if the newspaper reported the banishment of Ms. Marinucci, there would be retaliation against Chronicle and Hearst reporters.  Later they recanted and said that the reporter might not be removed after all.

Please follow one of the links above to watch the protest video.  The protestors were singing, "We paid our dues, where's our change."  I suspect there are a lot of people currently feeling that way.

Yesterday's Washington Post reported that some Democrats may not support President Obama in his efforts to raise the debt ceiling.  Some have joined Republicans in requiring that deficit cuts be attached to any bill to raise the debt ceiling.

The article cites a few examples:

"The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a "real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction."

"Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), generally a stalwart White House ally, is undecided on the issue and is "hopeful" that a debt-ceiling bill can be attached to a measure to cut the federal deficit, said her spokesman, Linden Zakula. Klobuchar is also up for reelection next year."

The fact that this is even being discussed is due to the existence of the Tea Party.  Regardless of how you feel about the group, they have totally changed the dialogue in Washington. 

The article further reports:

"On Thursday, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said legislative leaders in both parties "have been clear that the debt ceiling has to and will be raised to prevent another economic meltdown." She added that there is also bipartisan agreement about reducing the deficit by trillions of dollars. "If members of Congress act responsibly and try to reach common ground, we can agree to significant deficit reduction without playing reckless politics with our economy," she said."

I would love to hear the White House's definition of middle ground.

Hot Air reported that President Jimmy Carter has made a visit to North Korea.  He made a few interesting statements about his trip--accusing the United States of human rights violations.  Please follow the link to the article and watch the video--it is amazing that one man could be so naive.

The article reports:

"Kim (Jong-Il) wouldn't meet with them, incidentally, for reasons I don't understand. When you have a former U.S. president willing to carry your water, hand him a bucket. Instead, Kim sent them a message saying he'd be willing to meet with either South Korea or the U.S. to talk disarmament and any matters -- like, say, food for the population, which may or may not be suffering an unusually harsh famine right now due to a bad winter. In theory, that would increase American leverage over Kim: The more desperately he needs food, the more willing he'll be to make concessions to get it. But now that we've got this choice soundbite from an Absolute Moral Authority like Carter suggesting that other countries have a right to be fed by us without preconditions, well, who knows. Besides, after all the North has done for them lately, South Korea practically owes them, no?"

Does anyone remember why North Korea has a food shortage?  Does anyone remember the promises to use their nuclear program for peaceful purposes only?  I don't doubt that the people in North Korea are starving.  I do wonder if the United States sent food to that country, if the average citizen would ever see it.  North Korea has become a major exporter of nuclear technology and nuclear equipment--not necessarily used for peaceful purposes.  If they choose to export those things, shouldn't the countries they are exporting them to supply them with food in exchange?  Why in the world should we feed an army that is planning to destroy us?

This chart is from Investors.com.  It is a picture of where we are in the recovery.  How you handle a recession matters.

I grew up watching Superman on television.  (He was in black and white then.)  He stood for truth, justice and the American way.  Comics Alliance reported yesterday:

"...Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Dispite very literaly being an alien immigrant.  Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of "truth, justice, and the American way," from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue and his constume.  What it means to stand for the "American way" is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political complexities rather than simple black and white morality."

Why am I concerned about a comic book character who runs inside telephone booths and runs around in tights?  Because our children and grandchildren read those comic books.  We grew up knowing that the American way was something special.  What are we teaching our children (through indoctrination with comic books) about the American way? 

Follow the link above to see the cartoon frame showing Superman explaining that he was going to speak before the United Nations and renounce his American citizenship.  This is truly a sad moment for America.

The problem with the internet for politicians is that anyone with half a brain and a working computer can look up all the statements made by that politician and see where there are contradictions.  It's not easy to be in politics in the age of the internet.

President Obama has tripped over his tongue with his recent comments on rising gasoline prices in America.  Power Line reported yesterday on the recent contradiction. 

The article reports on the President's asking world oil producers to increase their output:

"They need to increase supplies," Obama told CBS affiliate WTKR in Hampton Roads, Virginia. "We are in a lot of conversations with major oil producers like Saudi Arabia."

This is a truly amazing statement by President Obama.  I agree with the essence of the statement--increased production will help lower cost--it's his actions in domestic policy that contradict that statement that I don't agree with.

The article reminds us:

"President Obama named Steven Chu his Secretary of Energy just three months after Chu told the Wall Street Journal in a high-profile interview that "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Presumably Obama put Chu in charge of energy policy because he shared Chu's goal of driving American gas prices far above their then-current level. The policies that Obama, Chu and Obama's EPA have subsequently followed confirm that higher energy prices was their objective. Now, confronted with the political fallout from his policies and facing rejection at the polls in 2012, Obama is flailing helplessly to re-cast himself as an advocate for American consumers. But he still is not willing to do the one thing that is within his power and that will bring down energy costs: turn loose America's vast energy resources for development."

Increase supply lowers cost.  Now that the President has admitted this, it's time he put that policy in practice domestically.

I occasionally watch the television show "Mythbusters."  It always reminds me that some of the things that I take for granted are right can easily be proved wrong.  Well, yesterday the Heritage Foundation posted an article entitled "Obama's Top Six Gas Price Myths Busted."

The article lists the myths:

1.  Speculators are to blame.

2.  Price gouging is to blame.

3.  The solution is alternative energy.

4.  The President wants lower gas prices.

5.  More biofuels will solve the problem.

6.  There is nothing President Obama can do about gas prices.

The article details why each myth is false.  I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article.

In terms of what the President can do about gas prices, the article concludes:

"On April 6, President Obama told an audience, "I'm just going to be honest with you. There's not much we can do next week or two weeks from now." There is actually plenty President Obama can do immediately.

"He can start issuing drilling permits in the Gulf. Obama's Department of Interior went nearly a year without issuing a new permit, to the point that a federal judge held them in contempt of court. Obama's Energy Information Agency projects that these permitting delays are costing us 240,000 fewer barrels of oil a day, along with the billions of dollars in government revenue in royalties. A Louisiana State University study found that at least 19,000 jobs across the nation were destroyed just by the Obama drilling "permitorium."

"He can stop the EPA from imposing costly new regulations on refiners. He can reverse the political EPA decision to stop Shell from tapping into 27 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic Ocean. Simply put, he can send a strong signal to the markets and oil cartels that the U.S. oil industry is back open for business.

"As Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK) recently said: "President Obama is completely uninformed about the oil and gas industry. The industry is not made up of just major companies. ... For every CEO of a major company, there are literally thousands of blue collar jobs that are affected by his administration's energy policy. It is a policy that is very inadequate and has left so many on the gulf coast unemployed. Americans are tired of empty rhetoric on both sides and want a real plan. If the President doesn't want to stand up and be a leader, then his silence would be appreciated from people who are trying to find solutions."

"Busted."

I believe the appropriate expression here is, "Lead, follow, or get out of the way!"

After considerable cajoling from Donald Trump, President Obama released his long form birth certificate yesterday. 

Newsbusters.org reported today that Fox News had the least amount of coverage of the 'birther' story.  The numbers:

Fox News:  0.4 percent

MSNBC:  9.2 percent

CNN:  5 percent

Obviously Fox News was not driving the story.  What in the world is going on here?  Does the 'birther' story serve as a convenient distraction from the actually important issues of the day?  Does the 'birther' story prevent people from looking at the President's actual actions and proposals?  What impact does the 'birther' story have on the President's approval records?  If the story is getting more coverage on networks normally more favorable to the President, how does this help the President? 

A few personal comments here.  I really don't care where the President was born.  If he was actually born in Kenya, he has perpetrated a fraud on the American people.  That is unfortunate, but it is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that a politician has perpetrated a fraud on the American people.  If he was born in Kenya, he should not be President, but I truly think that is a moot point.  I am more concerned with his actions than his birthplace.

That having been said, this discussion may take a while to go away.  Yesterday, The Smoking Gun posted their comments on the release of the birth certificate.

The article comments:

"This morning's White House release of President Barack Obama's long form birth certificate will, of course, do little to derail the "birther" movement, which will now analyze the document with the kind of verve previously directed toward those Texas Air National Guard memos faxed to CBS from that Kinko's in Abilene."

The article then lists a set of questions that will now be asked about the document.  In case you are interested, I have two--was African considered a race in 1961 or was it Negro and what was the legal name of Kenya, East Africa in 1961?  The questions will continue.  It's time to get out the popcorn, but also to realize that this discussion is a serious distraction.

Today I had the privilege of attending an information meeting on Councils on Aging around the State of Massachusetts.  I am part of the Board of my local Council on Aging and must admit that I didn't totally understand the role or reponsibilities of a Council on Aging.  I learned a lot.

One of the most interesting things I learned was how the demographics of our society are rapidly changing.  Obviously, the baby boom began in 1946, and those babies are now turning 65 and retiring.  Today we have 22 elders for every 100 working people.  In 2030 we will have 35 elders for every 100 working people.  How will that impact our society?

In Massachusetts a Council on Aging (COA) is a department of municipal government.  In most communities COA's are the only public service agency.  The basic mission of the COA is to link needs with resources.

One of things pointed out in the presentation was that people want to remain living in their own homes independently for as long as possible.  The services of the COA can help with that goal.  Some of the services the various COA's offer are meals on wheels, transportation to the Senior Center, educational opportunities at the Senior Center, and help with issues senior citizens may face (for example, wading through the paperwork involved in Medicare and other benefits).

My purpose in writing this article is first to make people who are elderly or who are dealing with an elderly relative aware that there is a place in their town where they can get answers and various services.  Secondly it is to say how impressed I am with the number of people in Massachusetts who volunteer in some way to be part of the Council on Aging or help the Council on Aging provide services to local residents.  Almost everyone involved with the Council on Aging is a volunteer.  That is a wonderful and amazing fact.

There is a basic principle in economics called "The Law of Supply and Demand."  Stated simply, it means that if you have a lot of something, the price will tend to go down, if you have a scarcity of something, the price will tend to go up.  A few examples--the cost of housing as the housing bubble broke and there was a glut of houses on the market, the cost of diamonds at any time, the cost of Super Bowl tickets.  You get the idea.  It's a pretty logical principle and most people have a basic knowledge of the concept even if they don't necessarily know the rule. 

On Monday Newsbusters.org reported that Chris Matthews, in responding to Tim Pawlenty's statement that exploiting America's energy resources would help lower the cost of energy in this country, stated, "Well, nobody thinks this country can drill its way out of high gas prices."

That is an amazing statement.  Let's look at some of the highlights of America's energy program:

The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.

 
BigGovernment.com reported on February 3 of this year that the Obama Administration was blocking 103 Gulf drilling permits.

Drilling in the Bakken oil reserve in North Dakota has resulted in North Dakota's  unemployment rate at 4.3% in December--more than five percentage points below the national level--and the state government projects a surplus for the current budget cycle.

Not only will drilling lower the cost of gasoline, it will lower unemployment and bring money into the country rather than sending it out of the country, often to countries that are not our friends.

Last November I watched Massachusetts decide not to take part in the political unheaval that was taking place in elections around the country.  We had elected Scott Brown in January, but for whatever reason couldn't quite send any other Republicans to Congress.  However, in the state House of Representatives and Senate, there were many close races and some losses for the Democrats.  The following story is the result of those statewide results.

Well, even though the voters chose not to participate in November's earthquake on a national level, some of our state officials are paying attention to what is going on locally, in Wisconsin and in other places.  Michael Graham's Blog, The Natural Truth, reported today that:

"Massachusetts taxpayers awoke to stunning news this morning. Around midnight, the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives voted to limit government union's collective bargaining power over their health care benefits.

"In Massachusetts. As the stunned president of the local AFL-CIO said after the vote: "Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.""

This is a very interesting turn of events.  The legislation may not make it through the state Senate, but it is still amazing that it made it through the state House of Representatives. 

Michael Graham further points out:

"Massachusetts is a state where public-sector unions have power, use power and expect the politicians to do what they're told. Here's Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO: "These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. . . It's a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber."

"If that sounds eerily like a mob boss who just found out one of his lieutenants isn't obeying orders, you're on the right track."

The article also points out that Massachusetts has the second-highest per capita government debt in the US, plus one of the worst unfunded-pension problems.  The legislation passed late last night may have been passed more out of necessity than political philosophy.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article by Betsy McCaughey about some recent statement's made about Paul Ryan's plan to cut the budget by changing Medicare for future recipients in order to ensure its survival.

The article reports:

"The Democratic Party is urging Americans to choose Medicare as we've always known it rather than a new plan by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that would enroll seniors in private health insurance beginning in 2022. This choice is a hoax: Medicare as we've always known it is already gone. It was eviscerated by President Obama's health law. Yet if the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters, they may win back independents and registered Democrats who voted for Republicans in 2010. The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood."

This is a very important statement.  The election of 2012 may depend on whether or not senior citizens understand what Obamacare does to Medicare. 

One aspect of Obamacare is the rationing of healthcare under Medicare:

"The Ryan proposal also includes a $7,800 annual medical savings account to help low-income seniors with out-of-pocket costs. Amazingly, the CBO analysts exclude this $7,800 benefit from their calculations. Their warning about low-income seniors suffering is baseless.

"So what can retiring Americans count on in 2022 and after? The Obama health law leaves that up to an unelected board of presidential appointees called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a cost-cutting panel.

"The board is a radical departure from Medicare as we've known it. Congress cedes nearly all control of Medicare spending to the board on the rationale that budgeting decisions should be shielded from outraged seniors and political pressures. On April 13, the president reiterated that the board would decide what care is "unnecessary" for seniors. Even the CBO cautioned that as the nation's debt crisis worsens, benefits will be put on the board's chopping block."

An article posted at Big Government on Monday states:

Under his deficit reduction plan, the President proposes to expand the power of this unelected entity to increase the GDP growth per capita cut from the current 1% to 5%. In addition, under his proposal Medicaid payments to states would also be tightly controlled and access to drugs would be limited through spending on prescription drugs.

There are two things that make this proposal doomed to fail if the goal is to decrease health costs while providing quality care:

1. It does nothing to change the exemptions that were given to the hospitals, and other Medicare providers that make up a majority of Medicare spending thereby protecting them from the reach of the IPAB.
2. It will further decrease the already below market rate of Medicare reimbursements to doctors making it even more difficult to provide both quality care for the Medicare patient and to keep their practices open.

If Senior Citizens are paying attention, they will elect congressmen and a president who support Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare.  Anything else will eventually deny them the quality of care that senior citizens have had in this country.

Yesterday Fox News reported that an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) was found on the southbound side of Highway 77 on Sunday.

KRGV.com reported:

"The improvised explosive device or I-E-D was disarmed by a bomb squad using a robot. No one was hurt. Parts of Highway 77 were closed for several hours.

"Police are continuing to investigate."

Hopefully they will find the guilty party quickly.

Yesterday Fox News reported that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board has decide to withhold critical permits to Shell Oil Company in the company's efforts to drill off the north coast of Alaska.  As a result of this move, Shell has been forced to abandon its plan to drill in Alaska.

The article reports:

"Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He's especially frustrated over the appeal board's suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. "We think the issues were really not major," Slaiby said, "and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.""

The article explains that the nearest village is about seventy miles away from the drill site and has a population of 245 people. 

The article reports:

"The EPA's appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling."

When elections come in 2012, we need to remember why gasoline prices are rising out of control.  This sort of ruling from the EPA is not the only cause, but America could return to prosperity fairly quickly by developing its domestic energy resources.  The current recession is partially the result of government energy policies, government fiscal policies, and crony capitalism which begins in the White House.  It's time to unelect anyone who has been part of the cause of this recession.  Anyone who supports this sort of EPA ruling should be among the first to go.

One of the foundations of our nation is the First Amendment, which allows free speech, protest, etc.  In court decisions, burning the United States flag has been seen as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.  I don't agree with this, but it is a right which has been upheld.  Meanwhile, I guess Detriot didn't read the Constitution too carefully.

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported that Terry Jones was refused a permit to protest outside an Islamic Center.  The city was afraid that his protest would stir up some radical Muslim at the center and violence would follow. 

The article reports:

"So they put him on trial, with the jury asked to determine what they thought his intent would be in holding the protest. If they thought his aim was peaceful, he'd be found not guilty; if they thought he meant to incite violence, then guilty as charged. Verdict: Guilty. Which means not only was this guy convicted of a speech crime he hadn't yet committed (a.k.a. prior restraint), but it was only a crime in the first place because of the expected reaction from his opponents. In other words, it's a de facto codification of the heckler's veto."

This is disturbing.  The article further points out:

"It's the heckler's veto, in other words. If you say something that's so offensive to someone that, gosh darn it, they just can't help but be violent in response, you can go to prison for it. Again, though: Typically you have to say something before you can be charged. Jones didn't get a chance here, thanks to the state's utter panic in shutting him down before one of the locals could run amok in outrage at whatever he had planned."

I am not a big fan of Pastor Jones.  However, he has the right to protest anywhere he wants to.  If the fear is that there will be violence on the part of the people he is protesting, those people are the problem--he is not.  If they become violent, they should be arrested and dealt with.  This is an example of not being able to say anything against Islam for fear of violence.  Prohibition of any speech critical of Islam is part of Sharia Law.  That prohibition should not be allowed in America..

This is a quote from President Obama's weekly address on Saturday:

"Now, whenever gas prices shoot up, like clockwork, you see politicians racing to the cameras, waving three-point plans for two dollar gas.  You see people trying to grab headlines or score a few points.  The truth is, there's no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away.

"But there are a few things we can do.  This includes safe and responsible production of oil at home, which we are pursuing.  In fact, last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003.  On Thursday, my Attorney General also launched a task force with just one job: rooting out cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices, including any illegal activity by traders and speculators.  We're going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of the American people for their own short-term gain.  And another step we need to take is to finally end the $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies we give to the oil and gas companies each year.  That's $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they're making record profits and you're paying near record prices at the pump.  It has to stop."

Note the comment that the Attorney General is launching a task force to root out fraud and manipulation of the oil markets so that they can find the true cause of rising prices.  Mr. President, I can save you some money.

Today the American Thinker posted an article explaining one reason why gasoline prices have gone through the roof. 

The article makes a number of good points:

"I'm also going to ignore the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf and general opposition to domestic exploration and production of petroleum by this Administration.

"No, the main culprit here isn't the nameless, faceless "speculators" that are now the object of the President's scorn, but government policy itself, both with the Federal Reserve (monetary) and the budget deficits accrued in recent years (fiscal).  What is going on is that the government is trying to deflect blame to these nameless, faceless speculators for their own disastrous fiscal and monetary policies."

 

"This spendthrift, loose (and reckless) policy is also reflected in the price of gold and silver, which are historical safe harbors from inflation because (as precious metals) they store value and are never worthless.  Gold as of this writing was over $1,500/oz, silver over $46/oz.  Gold at the beginning of the Obama Administration was just over $850/oz, silver at under $11.50/oz.  Just this month, the price of silver skyrocketed from $40/oz to $45/oz in only 12 days.  The loss of confidence in the dollar has been striking."

This is another example of the sleight of hand this administration is so good at--if you believe the oil companies are manipulating the price, you won't look at how the administration's policies have impacted the cost of gasoline.

On Saturday, Andrew McCarthy reported at National Review:

"In the United States, rules on charitable giving  have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation," President Obama claimed during his 2009 Cairo speech. "That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.""

That's a really amazing statement.  The only restriction on charitable giving in America is that Americans are not allowed to give money to organizations that support terrorism. 

Mr. McCarthy points out that the statement that Muslims are restricted in their giving is one of two lies in the statement.  He then points out:

"The other falsehood was more subtle: the president's suggestion that the religious obligation of zakat -- one of the "five pillars of Islam" -- is the equivalent of "charitable giving." It is not. Zakat is every Muslim's obligation to contribute to the fortification of the ummah, the notional worldwide Islamic nation. And that very much includes the funding of violent jihad against non-Muslims."

That is obviously the root of the complaint, but why is President Obama complaining that Muslims can't support terrorism?  Does he understand what he is saying?  When Christians give money to Christian organizations as part of their religion, it is understood that the money goes to relief efforts, spreading the Gospel, etc.  There is not a military aspect of modern Christianity.

Mr. McCarthy points out that after the earthquake in Haiti, Americans supplied 44 percent of the world's relief efforts.  Muslims accounted for 0.1 percent of the total donations committed by governments.  So where are their 'charitable' donations going?  They are being used to support jihad--not to help people in need. 

The article points out:

"Muslims are taught that charity means Muslims aiding Muslims, for the purpose of fortifying and extending the ummah until all the world is Islam's domain. "Of their wealth, take alms," instructs Allah in the Koran (9:103), "that so thou mightest purify and sanctify them." Thus, zakat may be given only to Muslims."

We need to remember as we hear the President or others make statements about the limits on Muslim's dontations to charity that we are dealing with a different concept of charity.  Whether or not the President is aware of this, I don't know, but I hope someone informs him quickly if he is unaware.

On Friday, the American Thinker posted an article entitled, "The '1967 border'--the lie that won't die." 

The article was written in response to the recent articles in the mainstream media as Palestine increases its efforts to become a state without dealing with the issue of peace with Israel.

The article reports:

"Both the New York Times and the Washington Post, in their April 22 editions, report that a group of prominent Israeli leftist intellectuals demonstrated in Tel Aviv in support of a Palestinian state based on the "1967 borders.""

There are a few problems with this idea.  There is no 1967 border--there is only an armistice line created after all of Israel's neighbors invaded her as soon as she became a nation.  The 1949 armistice line was never internationally recognized as a border. 

The article in the American Thinker points out what happened when Arabs controlled the holy sites of the three major religions of the world:

"Compounding this lie, the Times and the Post also erase from actual history the fact that during Jordan's illegal 1949-67 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City of Jerusalem, Jews were barred from Judaism's holiest sites -- the Western Wall, Temple Mount and Hebron's Cave of the Patriarchs.   A return to the 1967 line would deal Jews a similar fate. 

"The truth, so lacking in the Times and the Post, is that Israel still awaits an eastern "border" that can and will be fixed only as part of a final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , as mandated by the UN Security Council in Resolution 242.  In the meantime, history and Arab aggression  have  swept away the 1949 armistice line and, notwithstanding the lie perpetuated by the Times' Isabel Kershner and the Post's Joel Greenberg, a "border" still remains an elusive quest that has yet to reach its  final destination."

This is not an acceptable situation.  The thing we need to remember is that the land Israel currently occupies is a small fraction of the land it was promised when the nation was created.

This is a map of the original British Mandate for Israel:

Palestine was the name given to Israel at that time.  Transjordan was originally to be given to the Jewish state, but Britain reneged on its promise and gave the land to the Arabs instead.  In 1921, the Arab representative responsible for the above division of the land, Emir Feisal, agreed to abandon all claim of his father to Western Palelstine if he secured Iraq and Eastern Palestine as Arab terrorities.  These are the borders set up for the nation of Israel.  The 1949 borders were simply an armistice.

Somehow our society in general has lost the idea that you put antisocial killers in jail so that they cannot continue in their crimes.  It seems that in recent years we have a tendency to put them in charge of countries and give them money.  This does not promote peace.

Arutz Sheva reported over the weekend that Palestinian Arabs shot at a number of Jewish worshippers at Kever Yosef (Joseph's Tomb) near Shechem.  Several hours later they set fire to the tomb. 

Power Line added further details yesterday:

"Today it was the PA police forces themselves that did the shooting, murdering one Israeli and wounding four others who had gone to pray at Joseph's tomb on the morning before the last day of Passover. The one murder victim (so far) has been identified as 24-year-old Ben Yosef Livnat, a nephew of Likud Minister Limor Livnat and the father of four children, so the celebrations in the territory controlled by the PA must be grand indeed. Palestinian Arabs proceeded to desecrate Joseph's tomb and attack Livnat's funeral procession. I should add that in Haaretz, one spokesman for the Israelis on the West Bank makes the point linking PA incitement with the Fogel murders in connection with toda's events.

"Arutz Sheva adds this piquant detail. The PA police forces continued to fire at the cars of the Jews observing Passover as they fled from the site. Were the Palestinian security forces among those trained by General Dayton and the United States? Perhaps some American reporter will care to ferret out the facts."

Meanwhile, America continues to send money to Palestine, and Palestine moves forward on its plan to declare statehood through the United Nations in September.  Unless someone wakes up quickly, we are on our way to creating another terrorist state--only this time the United Nations (with the cooperation of the United States) will be the organization that created it!

Andrew McCarthy posted an article yesterday at National Review about the question of raising the debt ceiling.  Mr. McCarthy cites an article posted by Senator Pat Toomey at Real Clear Politics yesterday. 

Senator Toomey states:

"On last Sunday morning's talk shows, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once again implied that, if the debt limit is not promptly raised, the United States will default on its debt and the resulting catastrophe will be the fault of congressional Republicans.

"But Secretary Geithner knows that congressional delay in raising the debt limit will in no way cause a default on our national debt. If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, about 7 percent of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt. Tax revenue is projected to cover at least 70 percent of all government expenditures. So, under any circumstances, there will be plenty of money to pay our creditors."

Last month an op-ed in the Washington Times reported:

"While it is true Congress has never before refused to raise the debt ceiling, it has frequently taken its sweet time to do so. In 1985, Congress waited nearly three months after the debt limit was reached before authorizing a permanent increase. In 1995, 4 1/2 months passed between hitting the ceiling and congressional action. And in 2002, Congress delayed raising the debt ceiling for three months. In each case, the U.S. and the economy survived."

The Washington Times further reports:

"[F]ederal revenues will reach $2.17 trillion this fiscal year. Interest payments on the nation's debt are estimated to be $205 billion this year, or about 10 percent of revenues. Taking that payment off the top, as Mr. Toomey's plan would, leaves $1.9 trillion for Congress to spend. That's enough to pay for Social Security ($741 billion), Medicare ($488 billion), and Medicaid ($276 billion), with $395 billion left for other programs."

That would be the fiscally responsible way to deal with the situation. 

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

"The people running this government are never going to deal with this untenable situation unless and until it becomes untenable for them. The only way that will happen is if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling and forces the administration to prioritize payment of those obligations that must be paid to maintain our full faith and credit -- for as Kevin and Veronique point out, this already perilous situation could be blown sky high if the interest rate we must pay to borrow spikes. Only when there is no way around it will we get serious consideration of what government should and should not do, and what kind of welfare state the public is willing to pay for.

"If we put it off, if we expand the credit card of a bankrupt Washington whose credit card needs to be cut to pieces right now, not only will our dire straits get worse. We won't get to deal with them -- we will be at the mercy of how they deal with us when the music finally stops." 

The Republicans in Congress need to have the backbone to stop the President from raising the debt ceiling.  I don't know if that is what will actually happen.  What I suspect will happen is that the White House will say that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the military will not be paid, Social Security will not be paid, etc.  There will be statements that the United States as we know it will be 'over' if the debt ceiling is not raised.  President Obama has already stated that when he voted against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator, he was only being political.  Now he is doing the right thing by asking that it be raised.  If anyone believes that, he ought to be stopped from voting!

We don't need to raise the debt ceiling.  We don't need to raise taxes.  We need to stop the spending.  If the current Republicans do not have the backbone to do that, then we need new Republicans.

I received an email this morning talking about the 28th Amendment.  While the email had some really good ideas in it, snopes declared it "mostly false."  I checked it, and it is partially false, but the idea behind it is valid.  Follow the link to snopes after you read this.

I reported on April 15th (rightwinggranny.com) that Jim DeMint an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that would limit the terms of Senators and Representatives in Congress.  That is true.  Unfortunately, the email had many other suggestions that might be good, but were not included in Senator DeMint's article.

If you receive an email that starts off saying:

Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. ...

Please go to snopes.com and read the commentary.  Term limits is a wonderful idea.  The rest of the email has some truth, but does not totally reflect the facts.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article by John Fund on the migration that is currently taking place from California to Texas. 

Mr. Fund reports:

"It wasn't your usual legislative hearing. A group of largely Republican California lawmakers and Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled here last week to hear from businesses that have left their state to set up shop in Texas.

""We came to learn why they would pick up their roots and move in order to grow their businesses," says GOP Assemblyman Dan Logue, who organized the trip. "Why does Chief Executive magazine rate California the worst state for job and business growth and Texas the best state?""

When our government was founded, part of the idea of states was that the states would be laboratories for new ideas.  If an idea worked in a state, it might be carried to the federal level.  If an idea did not work in a state, it would die there, and the state would abandon it as a failure.  That's a great concept that has not neccessarily worked perfectly.  I live in Massachusetts.  Unfortunately our state medical reform (which has dramatically increased the cost of health insurance and not done much else) was the model for Obamacare.  The tax and spend policies that have failed in many states unfortunately invaded the federal government a long time ago.  It seems as if the idea of states as laboratories is a good concept, but we are copying the unsuccessful and ignoring the successful.  Anyway, back to California and Texas.

The article cites one example of why businesses are moving from California to Texas:

"Andy Puzder, the CEO of Hardee's Restaurants, was one of many witnesses to bemoan California's hostile regulatory climate. He said it takes six months to two years to secure permits to build a new Carl's Jr. restaurant in the Golden State, versus the six weeks it takes in Texas. California is also one of only three states that demands overtime pay after an eight-hour day, rather than after a 40-hour week. Such rules wreak havoc on flexible work schedules based on actual need. If there's a line out the door at a Carl's Jr. while employees are seen resting, it's because they aren't allowed to help: Break time is mandatory."

Mr. Fund concludes:

"But if California continues its economic decline, something Texas-sized in its ambitions may be called for-- whether it's a moratorium on new business regulations or a restructuring of the state's dysfunctional unemployment compensation or litigation. Nothing less is likely to stem the outflow of businesses and jobs from the Golden State."

California is an amazing state.  It has climates and scenery to please every taste.  It has culture and open spaces.  It is a wonderful place.  I hope the people who run the state begin to look at what they can do to turn California into the paradise for people and businesses that it is capable of being.

In June of 2010, Michael Yon posted a story on his website about "Gobar Gas" which is used as a fuel source in Nepal. 

Mr. Yon tells the history of the idea:

"The insights of a Gurkha veteran named Lalit, whom I met in the jungles of Borneo, at a British Army man-tracking school, were particularly valuable. One day in the jungle Lalit began a conversation by announcing that many of Afghanistan's household needs could be solved if Afghans would adopt "Gobar Gas" production. Gobar Gas could improve the lives of Afghans as it had that of the Nepalese, he said, as he began to explain with great enthusiasm.

"During Lalit's time in Afghanistan, he found nobody who had heard of Gobar Gas--even though Gobar Gas has been a quiet engine of ground-level economic transformation in Nepal and numerous other poor Asian nations."

Gobar Gas is a gas similar to methane that is made by 'distilling' various waste materials.

The article explains:

""Gobar" is the Nepali word for cow dung. The "Gas" refers to biogas derived from the natural decay of dung, other waste products, and any biomass. In Nepal, villagers use buffalo, cow, human, and other waste products for biogas production. Pig and chicken dung are used in some places, as are raw kitchen wastes, including rotted vegetation.

"Gobar is typically mixed with a roughly equal amount of water, and gravity-fed through a pipe into an airtight underground "digester," where naturally occurring bacteria feast on the mixture. This anaerobic process produces small but precious amounts of gas. That gas can be fed directly into a heat source, such as a cooking stove, and used to fuel it."

Gobar gas is 50-70% methane by volume, similar to natural gas, and a convenient source of clean energy.  The article further explains:

"After bacteria digest the dung, the by-product is a rich organic fertilizer, sometimes called slurry, or bioslurry. That fertilizer is more effective than raw dung, with important benefits for hands-on farmers. For instance, it doesn't smell bad, and almost all the pathogens and weed seeds have been destroyed."

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.  I am not sure how much of this is practical for the United States (we don't have a lot of animals in most communities that produce cow dung), but it is an amazing concept.  It would be nice to see this form of energy come to Afghanistan.  Not only is the energy clean, it's by-product is clean and useful.  What a great idea.

Yesterday Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story from Cairo stating that hundreds of Islamists have staged a protest in front of the U. S. Embassy in Cairo demanding that the U. S. release Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the blind sheik.  The blind sheik is currently in prison for life because of his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  He was also convicted of an advisory role in conspiracies to blow up the United Nations and several New York bridges and tunnels.

The article reports:

"The protest leader was Abboud el-Zomor, who was released from an Egyptian prison in March after serving multiple sentences for his role in the assassination of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat."

Anwar Sadat was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood because he was seen as getting too cozy with Israel.  Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood has now gained the power in Egypt that they were not able to gain at that time.  Hosni Mubarak outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood during the time he controlled Egypt.  Since the ouster of Mubarak, the Brotherhood has begun to consolidate its control of the country.  We need to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is the worldwide caliphate.  They are patient and they are willing to use peaceful means to attain that goal, but don't forget, that is their goal.  Unless we want Sharia Law to come to America, we need to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood anywhere we can.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted a story about the National Labor Relations Board's (NLRB) attempt to control where Boeing builds the assembly line for the new 787 airplane.  Lafe Solomon, who was appointed to the board by President Obama, filed a complaint Wednesday on behalf of the NLRB to force Boeing to build the assembly line in Washington state rather than South Carolina.  South Carolina is a right-to-work state, where workers would not have to be unionized. 

The article points out that Boeing had originally planned to build the plant in Washington state, but the International Association of Machinists (IAM) refused to sign a contract with a long-term no-strike clause.  Since 1989, strikes by the IAM have cost Boeing at least $1.8 billion in revenue.

The article points out:

"Construction of Boeing's new Charleston factory is nearly complete, and the company has already hired more than 1,000 new employees, drawn mostly from within the immediate region. And back in Washington, Boeing has actually increased employment at its Puget Sound plant by 2,000 workers. But that isn't good enough for the IAM or the Obama White House. After suffering major defeats in Wisconsin and Ohio, the labor movement is looking for a scalp. Obama's NLRB is trying to turn Boeing into one."

This is what happens when the White House is in the pocket of the labor unions. 

The article further reports:

"A ruling in favor of Obama's NLRB would make it presumptively illegal for any unionized firm to invest in a right-to-work state.

"At first, this would mainly hurt right-to-work states, as they would no longer be able to lure new businesses from existing unionized firms. But over the long run, this policy would hurt unions and all Americans. Why would any domestic company choose to build a factory in a forced-union state if it knew that meant it could never expand to a right-to-work state? Why would any international firm invest anywhere in this country if it knew the White House would favor political allies?

"The NLRB isn't protecting workers, it is setting them up for eventual unemployment."

Regardless of the outcome, the NLRB is making it very expensive to expand a company into a right-to-work state.  This is another way the Obama Administration and its appointees are creating unemployment and infringing upon people's (and company's) rights. 

There is a website called A Time To Betray that is run by Reza Kahlili (a pseudonym for a CIA operative formerly in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard).  He is no longer in Iran, but runs a website and reports on events related to Iran and terrorism. 

Today A Time To Betray posted a story about Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian Defense Minister, who is scheduled to visit Baghdad in the near future.

According to the article:

"A high-ranking delegation, including military and defense officials, will accompany Vahidi during the visit. The Iranian delegation will meet with Iraqi officials to discuss the regional developments and boost military and defense cooperation."

Countries in the Middle East have learned that it is in their best interest to align themselves with a strong horse rather than a weak one.  Unfortunately when America has a weak or uncertain President, Middle Eastern countries look for support elsewhere.  Unfortunately, we will see much more of this for the next year and a half. 

The article further reports:

"Mr. Vahidi is on the Interpol's most wanted for the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 and injured hundreds. As the defense minister, Mr. Vahidi is directly responsible for the Iranian nuclear bomb and missile programs, and is also in charge of the proliferation of arms to Syria, Venezuela, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, and North African countries.

"The Iranian leaders will see Mr. Vahidi's trip to Iraq as a victory over America, as it was his very policies that armed the Iraqi Shiite militias meant to harm and bring down U.S. forces in Iraq."

I hope our leaders are paying attention.  This is not a positive development.

Today's American Thinker posted an article on the Boston Globe's recent attack on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. 

The American Thinker article reports:

"The Boston Globe exhibited a sample hatchet job on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour on its front page, titled "Amid strained clinics, foe assails 'ObamaCare.'" The story-- less a news story than an unpaid political ad for Obama and ObamaCare -- portrays Barbour as heartless and "out of touch with low-income people.""

As usual, the facts weren't really related to the story.  The Globe tells the story of a clinic in a strip mall that services many of Mississippi's poor. 

The writer of the article points out:

"My primary care physician is at one of the best hospitals in the world. In Massachusetts we have a form of guaranteed health insurance comparable to the ObamaCare that Barbour is assailing. My annual physical this year cost $1,372, and after my $15,048 annual insurance policy paid its share, my out of pocket cost was $458. My health care is excellent, but is this level of excellence a basic human right that we must guarantee to every citizen through federal mandate? Isn't a nurse practitioner or a doctor in a strip mall clinic capable of handling most primary care medicine -- our multitude of aches, pains, coughs, and sore throats?

 

"Haley Barbour thinks so, and he has led the lawsuit by twenty-six states against ObamaCare. He refuses to accept federal funding because of the costly strings attached. The Globe writer seems confused by the whole concept. As he writes, "health care advocates and physicians...are especially dismayed because they view the law as a great financial deal for the state.""

The best part of the article is the Haley Barbour quote at the end:

"Most of the health disparities in Mississippi are not because of the inability to get access or afford health care...They are because of diet, alcohol, because of drugs, the very high incidence of illegitimacy that leads to high incidence of low-birth weight children. I grew up in a society where if it wasn't fried you were asking, "Why not?""

This man may have serious potential as a presidential candidate--he is straight forward and has a wonderful sense of humor.

Fox News reported yesterday that for the first time since the Great Depression, U. S. households are getting more from the government than they are paying in taxes. 

Including expanded unemployment benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and stimulus payments, households received $2.3 trillion in some kind of government support in 2010. 

The article reports:

"...that's more than the $2.2 trillion households paid in taxes, an amount that has slumped largely due to the recession, according to an analysis by the Fiscal Times."

"...Also, an estimated 59% of the 308.7 million Americans in this country get at least one federal benefit, according to the Census Bureau, based on 2009 data. An estimated 46.5 million get Social Security; 42.6 million get Medicare; 42.4 million get Medicaid; 36.1 million get food stamps; 12.4 million get housing subsidies; and 3.2 million get Veterans' benefits." 

These are not sustainable numbers. 

The article further reports:

"The Fiscal Times reports that "the only other time government income support exceeded taxes paid was from 1931 to 1936." The Times notes that "government transfers of income to households started to overtake personal taxes at the start of 2008, and the gap has been widening."

"The difference between what households received and what they paid in taxes is about $125 billion, equal to a little more than "three times the amount Republicans and Democrats agreed to cut from government spending through Sept. 30," the Fiscal Times said. Typically, the gap between government transfers and taxes runs the other way, the Times reports.

""In normal times the household sector gives about eight percentage points more of its income in taxes than it receives in direct transfers," the Times quotes J.P. Morgan economist Michael Feroli as saying, adding that a return to normalcy, or this eight-percentage-point spread, is equal to about $1.2 trillion in income."

It's time to get back to letting the private sector grow and create jobs, rather than expecting the government to create jobs by continued growth.  Smaller government means more prosperity for everyone.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner posted a story about President Obama's energy policy.  The article quoted the President as saying,   "There is no magic formula to driving gas prices down."   That's a very interesting statement.  I would agree that there is no instant formula to drive gasoline prices down, but there is a long term policy that would result in lower prices fairly quickly.  It's not magic--it's just common sense.

The article states:

"It involves either persuading Obama to reverse his opposition to significant expansion of domestic energy production, or replacing him in the Oval Office in November 2012."

I think that pretty much sums it up! 

The article cites President Obama's handling of the Gulf oil spill.  Initially, he claimed that scientists had approved his blanket moratorium on drilling after the oil spill.  That claim was later proved to be false.  The administration that defied a federal court by replacing the original moratorium after it was struck down with an essentially identical moratoriam.  The administration was found to be in contempt of court.  Meanwhile American offshore oil production is down 13 percent.  Because of the ban on deep-water drilling and the slowdown in approving drilling applications, the Wall Street Journal reports that America is losing about 375,000 barrels of oil a day of production.  This also represents a loss of $40 million a day of oil revenue. 

The article concludes:

"At today's prices, the Obama-induced loss of production represents $40 million per day in lost oil revenue. Spread over a full year, that comes to $14.6 billion that could be supporting thousands of sustainable, good-paying American jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. That is a much better deal than Obama's $800 billion stimulus package, which appears to have added far more to the national debt than it ever will to national employment. It seems clear that ideological and not economic considerations are at work in this administration's energy policy. The same politician who once said that energy prices would "necessarily skyrocket" under his plan seems less intent on job creation or energy security than he is on putting oil producers in a regulatory straitjacket and browbeating Americans into accepting the lower standard of living that inevitably results from energy scarcity."

I sure hope the Republicans have a good candidate in 2012.   

Yesterday's Daily Caller posted an article about the cost to every American of Washington's regulations on businesses and state and local governments.  Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute studied this and found a report stating that regulation cost $1.75 trillion in 2008.

Mr. Crews points out in his report that companies pass the cost of complying with complex regulations on to the consumer.  He also points out that Washington can raise money through regulation without having to pass unpopular tax bills.

The article in the Daily Caller points out some of the current overregulation:

• In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules.

• While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively "few" 217 bills. Considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies, an abuse addressed recently in proposals such as the REINS Act.

• Proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010, a jump of 19.3 percent.

• Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are "economically significant" meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact--this is an increase of 22 percent over 2009's 184 rules.

• Given 2010's government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory "hidden tax" of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.

• Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.

• Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.

• Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent--nearly double the level.

• Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.

• Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.

Keep in mind that the bigger percentage the government is of the economy, the smaller the private sector.

The last time a small oil refinery was built in the United States was 1993 in Valdez, Alaska.  The last time a large oil refinery was built in the United States was 1976.  These figures come from the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA).  The NPRA also reports that 95 percent of the gasoline purchased by U.S. consumers is refined inside the United States.  Do you think our demand for gasoline might have increased since 1976 or 1993?  Don't assume that Washington is paying attention.

On Monday CNS News reported that U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, is now to loan $2.84-billion for a massive project to expand and upgrade an oil refinery--in Cartagena, Colombia.  What about here at home?  I suspect that the problem is that the environmental regulations concerning refineries have gotten so out of hand in recent years; it probably does not pay to attempt to build a refinery in the United States.

The article reports:

"In its 2009 annual report, Ecopetrol says "we became 100% owners of Reficar, the company in charge of carrying out the Cartagena Refinery modernization plan."

"In its ordinary procedure for financing projects of this magnitude, the board of the Export-Import Bank votes its preliminary approval, notifies Congress of that preliminary approval, then waits five weeks before voting final approval of the deal. This allows members of Congress to comment on the planned financing project.

""The Reficar transaction is subject to congressional notification, with a final vote anticipated approximately 35 days following the expiration of the notification period," says the bank's press release on the loan.

"When asked if Congress can veto the loan, Ex-Im Spokesman Cogan said, "No.""

Whatever happened to the idea of developing America's refining industry?  Are we destined to keep spending money overseas to become more dependent on countries which in the long run may not actually be our friends?  Could we please have some common sense in Washington?

Townhall.com posted an article by Katie Pavlich about some of the protesters at the Phoenix Tea Party.  The protesters tried to shout down State Senator Russell Pearce as he noted the success of SB 1070 (the law that set up Arizona's current immigration policies). 

The article states:

"Pearce cited a rapid decrease in prison inmate population, $500 million in education savings and higher employment among legal Arizona residents since SB 1070 was implemented just a year ago, proving illegal immigration should be looked at as an economic issue in addition to a national security issue."

The video of the protesters is at the link above.  The problem for the protesters is that the facts speak for themselves.  Washington D. C., are you listening?

CNS News posted an article yesterday stating that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has "already has reviewed provisions in the Affordable Care Act that purport to bring down health care spending - what Obama calls "bending the cost curve" - and found little evidence they will bear fruit."

The article reports:

"CBO also reviewed the proposal cited by Obama as the primary vehicle for saving "well over $1 trillion" -- the Independent Payment Advisory Board - and found that it would save only about $2 billion between 2010 and 2019.

""CBO estimates that enacting the proposal, as drafted, would yield savings of $2 billion over the 2010-2019 period (with all of the savings realized in fiscal years 2016 through 2019)," CBO said in a July 2009 letter.

"The Independent Payment Advisory Board - under Obama's proposal - would recommend ways to save money by making health care delivery more efficient. Medicare would incorporate these changes and use its large market presence to force those changes on the broader health care market.

"CBO, however, cast doubt on the advisory board's ability to ever actually do this, saying that because the plan lacked specific details for reducing costs, there was little evidence the board would ever save anyone any money.

""In CBO's judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized...but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized," CBO's 2009 letter stated."

Unless we begin to control government spending, America will go bankrupt.  Enacting a multibillion dollar new healthcare entitlement at this time is not a wise move.  One of the most effective ways Congress can cut the budget is to end Obamacare and start medical reform from scratch.  Texas has done wonders with tort reform, Congress should follow their example.

Yesterday Big Government posted a story about a speech made in Lansing, Michigan, by AFSCME president Herb Sanders.  

According to the article, Mr. Sanders stated:

"If necessary, we will use the valuable public service jobs that we perform as a weapon and shut this state down."

Wow!  Have they forgetten the concept of 'public servants?'  The video posted in the article shows Mr. Sanders giving the speech. 

The article further reports:

"There needs to be a real, straightforward way to deal with such behavior.  One of the signs that I laughed at most in Madison was "I am irreplaceable."

"No, you're not.  Everyone is replaceable.  Everyone can become a liability when their perceived value outweighs reality.

"The fact is, Herb Sanders' members are very replaceable and the state of Michigan, and every other state with a union-held gun to its head, should have ways to replace them - quickly."

Any organization that firmly believes it is irreplaceable needs to be replaced.  The battle between unions and states is not about wages or benefits--it's about power.  The unions have been a major contributor to liberal candidates for a long time.  As the unions see their membership continue to shrink, they are concerned that their influence will be waning in the very near future.  There is also the matter of unfunded retirement benefits for members.  Unless the unions continue to grow, many benefit promises will not be met.  It will be interesting to see where the battle between the unions and the states is in about two years.

Yesterday's Daily Caller posted a story about Sen. Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.  Senator Baucus added a 'rider' to the recently passed spending bill.  The rider delists wolves from an endangered species list in some states.  The National Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to delist wolves in states where there numbers have recovered to robust populations.  Environmentalists immediately sued (and won) in federal court, blocking the plan.  Congress responsed by reinstating the plan of the National Fish and Wildlife Service and delisting the wolves.. 

Senator Baucus sent out an email stating the logical reasons for taking wolves off the endangered species list.  There is a tremendous amount of common sense involved in letting each state handle its wildlife according to the needs and situation in that state. 

It is interesting to note that the all of the riders curtailing new environmental regulations, the rider delisting wolves was the only one that made it into the final deal.

Delisting the wolves from the endangered species list is a move that makes sense for farmers, ranchers, and hunters who live in the states involved.   

Today, The Hayride, a Louisiana news website, posted an article about a visit to Brandon, Mississippi, by the Westboro Baptist Church.  The Westboro Baptist Church is the group that protests soldiers funerals saying horrible things it claims to be Christian.  Like all good lies, some of what they say has some truth in it and does agree with the Bible, but their attitude and presentation do not.  Generally speaking, they are a miserable group of people who show up and get publicity at the expense of a grieving family. 

Anyway, they were not successful in protesting the funeral of USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers, who was killed in action in Afghanistan April 7.  The town was ready for them. 

The Hayride reports:

"A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.

"Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.

"Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out.

"A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business."

I am sure the Westboro Baptist Church will file all sorts of lawsuits about this, but somehow I don't think they will be successful.  I'm not sure I approve of mob rule, but it this case it was definitely effective.

According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Texas Democrats have asked retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to run for the Senate in Texas.  Who is Lt. Gen. Sanchez?   He was in charge of the military theatre that included Abu Ghraib during the time prisoners were mistreated there.  Yes, I said mistreated.  Although what went on there was totally inappropriate, I don't think it rises to the level of torture.  Cutting innocent reporter's heads off and kidnapping people is torture.  Abu Ghraib was an example of inexplicable stupidity and cruelty.  At the time, however, the Democrats called for the removal of everyone in the chain of command up to Donald Rumsfeld.  Now they want to run a member of that chain of command for Senate.  My how times change.

Thinkprogress.org reported on June 1, 2009:

"Sanchez described the interrogation program as "a personal failure on the part of many." Indeed, Sanchez himself wrote and signed a 2003 memo that included specific interrogation tactics approved for use despite noting that they may violate the Geneva Conventions. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sanchez denied signing off on these interrogation methods."

It will be interesting to see what Texas voters do with this candidate.

What does it cost you every year to file your income taxes?  That's a questions I hadn't really considered until I read Arthur Laffer's article in the Wall Street Journal today.  Arthur Laffer is the originator of the "Laffer Curve" which shows that tax revenue actually goes up when tax rates go down.  Just to remind you of how that has worked historically, the house.gov website posted a report by the Joint Economic Committee that stated:

"... individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989."

That's the Laffer Curve in action showing what happened after Ronald Reagan cut taxes.  Unfortunately, Congress saw the increased revenue as license to spend wildly.

Mr. Laffer's article in today's journal is about the cost to Americans of filing taxes.  He points out that for every $1 Americans pay in taxes, there is a 30 cent mark-up which includes the costs of their own time spent filing and complying with the tax code; plus the tax collection costs of the IRS; plus the tax compliance outlays that individuals and businesses pay to help them file their taxes.  These costs amount to $431 billion annually.

The article points out:

"David Keating of the National Taxpayers Union provides a useful perspective on how big the tax compliance industry is. According to his research, as of 2009 the income-tax industry employed "more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies--more than all the workers at Wal-Mart Stores, United Parcel Service, McDonald's, International Business Machines, and Citigroup combined." Without diminishing in any way the professionalism of tax attorneys, accountants and financial planners, all of these efforts produce nothing other than, well, tax compliance."

The IRS tax code is 3.8 million words--over 11,000 single-spaced typed pages.  Mr. Laffer supports a flat tax rate.  I am not sure exactly what the right answer is, but I know the current system is much more complex than it needs to be.  It's time to put in a flat rate so that everyone in America is able to do their own taxes and all Americans are taxed, thus having 'skin in the game.'

On Saturday my local paper, The Attleboro Sun Chronicle, posted a story on the Tax Day Rally (Tea Party Rally) held in Boston on Friday.  The Headline of the story was "Tax Day Rally Grows Heated."  The story then goes on to report that the tea party activiests and the union members from around the state clashed during the rally.  At times the police had to step in between members of the two groups.  All of that is probably true, but they left out another part of the story.

It was a Tea Party rally--they organized it, set up the speakers, the program, etc.  The union members were there as protesters, which is perfectly legal, but their manners were deplorable.  Michael Graham, a Boston talk radio host, attended and spoke at the rally.  He filed a report on his website, michaelgraham.com.

Mr. Graham reports:

"What kind of jerks scream political insults and try to shout down a pastor while he's praying?

"That would be representatives of Massachusetts' fine government-sector unions.

"Watch this video from Friday's Tea Party event Boston Common.  What you'll see is a gaggle of union goons who push their way to the front, use banners and signs to block the stage and fire up their megaphones.

"The Tea Party organizers paid the costs of getting a permit, providing the required equipment, etc. The government goons and loony lefties didn't bother.  They didn't have to. They just showed up and started screaming.

"The screamed during my welcome to the crowd. That was annoying and rude, but that's to be expected.

"But when I introduced a pastor to deliver the invocation--and repeatedly told the government goons that we were about to pray--even I was taken aback when they tried to shout down the prayer." 

You can watch the video mentioned by following the link to Michael Graham's website.  Somehow this lack of manners on the part of the union members was not noted in any of the stories in any of the newspapers.

Remember what happened in Greece when the government benefits were cut.  Nothing has been cut--we are simply discussing the possibility.  Are we in danger of becoming Greece?

Today's UK Telegraph posted a story about Colin Atkinson, 64, from Wakefield, England, who has been called to a disciplinary hearing at the publicly funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), where he has worked for the past fifteen years.  His offense--displaying a palm cross in the window of his company van. 

The article reports:

"The organisation claims the cross may cause offence but says it strongly promotes "inclusive" policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols at work."

The managers of the organization will hold a full disciplinary hearing in May.  The complaint is based on the fact that the equality and diversity manager of the company (yes, you read that right) believes that the cross "gives the impression that WDH is a Christian organisation". 

There is an argument that can be made here that because the cross is in the window of his van and not on his person, there might be a problem.  However, that argument looks a little silly when you hear that the company "has provided stalls at gay pride events, held "diversity days" for travellers, and has allowed other staff to display photographs of Che Guevera, the revolutionary leader, in their office."

It does seem as if there is a double standard here. 

Obviously there are many reasons I don't trust the mainstream media, but here is the latest example.  Yesterday BigJournalism posted a story about some pictures CBS News showed that supposedly were from a Tea Party rally in Wisconsin on April 15 during which Sarah Palin spoke.

This is the commentary that goes with the pictures:

"MADISON, Wis. - After weeks of relative quiet following the bruising battle over an anti-union collective bargaining bill, the state Capitol was again the scene of protests and counter-protests.

Hundreds of pro-union labor supporters are surrounding smaller groups of conservative Tea Party members attending a rally featuring former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Speaking at the tax day rally outside the Wisconsin Capitol, Palin called the crowd in Madison courageous for having stood up to "death threats and thug tactics" of those who opposed Gov. Scott Walker's collective bargaining bill."

Nothing surprising there, but if you follow the above link and look closely at the picture, you will notice a pro-union supporter holding a sign urging people to vote in the April 6 election.  You have a choice--is the person holding the sign confused or did CBS post a picture from a previous rally and claim it was from the Tea Party rally?  Somehow I suspect the latter.

Big Government notes:

"They put "death threats and thug tactics" in quotes. Of course they would. This is a network that helped perpetuate the 'Blame Palin' narrative in the wake of the Tucson tragedy.

"CBS doesn't need to use quotations to question the validity of the death threats on which they refused to report. We reported on it for them at Big Journalism. I suggest CBS remove the quotes.

"CBS also doesn't need to Ratherize edit past rally footage of union protesters with footage of Palin speaking to promote the narrative that the tea party was outnumbered."

CBS, if you are going to pull a scam, at least do it intelligently!

On Friday,, Big Government.com posted an article about the dangers to American democracy inherent in the fact that currently 47 percent of American households pay no income tax.  In 2006, 40 percent of households paid not income tax. 

The article points out:

"By 2012 this could be the first election in which the majority of voters will be able to vote themselves more government largess paid for by a minority of taxpayers. We may soon have to re-jigger the American Revolution's familiar rallying cry into: "Representation Without Taxation!""

This is a true example of more people climbing into the wagon and fewer people being willing to pull the wagon. 

The article then goes on to cite some of the current figures on who pays taxes:

"Statistics vary slightly but it can be argued that the top five percent of US households pay 60% of federal income tax. Ten percent account for over 75%. Another two-fifths make up the rest. And half are exempt. And yet...twenty percent of US households get 75% of their income from the federal government. Another one-fifth receives 40% of their financial support from Uncle Sam. Think about what this means in terms of fiscal responsibility down the road. How receptive to cutting taxes which they do not pay, or cutting government spending, from which they benefit, is a majority voting block going to be in the future? Indeed, what does this say about our prospects for economic growth or curbing the size and scope of an ever growing government colossus in the face of a crushing $20 trillion deficit looming on the horizon?"

It's becoming very obvious that the answer to our financial problems is not to raise taxes on the rich, but to begin collecting taxes from the poor! 

On Friday, Investors.com reported that the vote to defund Obamacare that was part of the 2011 budget deal took place in the Senate. 

According to the article:

"...all 53 Democrats, including 23 up for re-election in 2012, voted to preserve funding for their version of socialized medicine. All 47 Republicans voted no. Game on."

Obviously the results of the vote are not surprising, but there are some interesting things going on concerning the vote.  There are some Democrats up for reelection in 2012 that this vote will be a problem for.  Freshman Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was elected in a special election in 2010.  During the campaign he stated that he was open to repealing ObamaCare.  He voted against repeal. 

The article points out:

"In his campaign speech last Wednesday, when he offered a new budget plan just one month after he offered a budget plan, President Obama spoke of an ObamaCare offspring called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will "look at the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need."

"This is called rationing.

"Rep. Phil Roe, a Tennessee Republican, recently told the Daily Caller that the IPAB is the "real death panel" in the health care law, as compared with the "end-of-life counseling" provisions in ObamaCare that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed "death panels.""

As I reported on this site (rightwinggranny) on April 12:

"...the latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows that Americans have now supported the repeal of Obamacare for 56 consecutive weeks (every single week since it was passed). In 55 of those weeks, including this one, Americans have supported repeal by double-digits (perhaps the political equivalent of a multi-hit game?). This week, repeal is favored by 10 points (51 to 41 percent), by 13 points among those who feel "strongly" (41 to 28 percent), by 16 points among independents (53 to 37 percent), and by 29 points among independents who feel "strongly" (44 to 15 percent)."  

The continuing unpopularity of Obamacare will play a role in the elections of 2012.  The other thing that will influence public opinion on Obamacare is the number of unions and corporations that supported its passage and then received exemptions from complying with it.  That sort of thing leaves a nasty taste in the public's mouth.

Forcing the vote of Obamacare that Harry Reid did not want to take was good strategy on the part of the Republicans.  Hopefully it is an indication of good decisions to come.

Is America funding terrorists?  Does the Justice Department care?  Which side is the Justice Department on?

These are some of the questions I had as I read an article posted today at National Review by Andrew McCarthy.  The article opens by pointing out the difference between the way Paul Ryan was treated in the President's speech on the budget last week and the way prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood were treated as they sat in the audience in Cairo in June 2009.  Paul Ryan was invited to attend the speech and then verbally attacked in it.  The Muslim Brotherhood, banned at the time in Egypt, must have loved what they heard from the President.  The article reports on the speech in Cairo:

"That was when al-Azhar University -- the font of Sunni theology and training ground for the virulently anti-American clerics who green-light jihadist terror -- sponsored his eagerly awaited oration on U.S. relations with the Muslim world. As usual, the speech was specious: a whitewash of the legacy of Islamic savagery, the expurgation of violent injunctions from Islamic scripture, historical ignorance of the Jewish claim to Israel, and even the adoption of "resistance" as the euphemism for Palestinian terrorism -- a touch that must have brought a smile to the faces of Hamas and the president's pal Rashid Khalidi, the former PLO mouthpiece turned Columbia professor."

It was just a speech, right? 

Mr. McCarthy reminds us of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood:

"In 2008, not long before Obama's Cairo speech, the Brotherhood was proved to be the prime mover in the biggest terrorism-financing conspiracy ever prosecuted by the Justice Department -- specifically, by the Bush-era U.S. attorney's office in Dallas. Five defendants were convicted in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case of routing tens of millions of dollars to Hamas during the intifada. As its charter attests, Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestinian branch. Since its creation in the late 1980s, Hamas's sustenance has been the top priority of the Brotherhood's U.S. operatives, including Mousa abu Marzook, who actually ran Hamas from his Virginia home in the early 1990s."

OK.  We know who they are.  Now Mr. McCarthy reports:

"At Pajamas Media on Thursday, terrorism researcher Patrick Poole broke the news that the Obama Justice Department has put the kibosh on the Dallas U.S. attorney's plan to bring follow-up terror-financing cases against some of the unindicted coconspirators from the HLF case."

When Patrick Poole was asked why his source was coming forward at this time, he answered:

Until we act decisively to cut off the financial pipeline to these terrorist groups by putting more of these people in prison, they are going to continue to raise money that will go into the hands of killers. And until Congress starts grilling the people inside DOJ and the FBI who are giving these groups cover, that is not going to change. My biggest fear is that Americans are going to die and it will be the very Muslim leaders we are working with who will be directly or indirectly responsible.

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

"As the Obama administration's rough treatment of Representative Ryan shows, it's not a comfortable time to be a member of Congress who starts asking a lot of questions this president doesn't want to hear. Fortunately for the economy, it appears that Ryan is not backing down. For the sake of our security, though, somebody up on the Hill better step up. It is past time to ask: What on earth is this administration's infatuation with the Muslim Brotherhood?"

We will never end the jihad against America by supplying terrorists the money to fight it.

Candidate Obama denouced the signing statements sometimes made by George W. Bush when he signed bills.  Well, that was thien, this is now.  Friday's Daily Caller posted an article about the signing statement made by President Obama as he signed the spending bill recently passed.  The bill called for defunding four Presidential czars.  The President has decided that he will "construe" the law not to interfere with "presidential prerogatives."  What in the world does that mean?

The entire signing statement is posted at the Daily Caller.  It says essentially that the President plans to ignore certain parts of the bill and work to overturn others.  It doesn't sound like the spirit of compromise is alive and well in Washington.

As the unrest in the Middle East continues, the price of oil increases and decreases, generally having a net increase.  American politicians seem to be blind to the dangers of depending on foreign sources of energy.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner posted an article entitled "How we will end up paying $6 a gallon for gas."  The article also points out that the number of people out of work is also growing. 

There is currently a de facto moratorium on United States deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico put there by President Obama.  Gulf oil workers have begged the Obama administration to approve new permits.

The article cites President Obama's response to these requests:

"Obama responded from the Bizarro World. He said he wanted to cut America's dependence on foreign oil. Then his administration effectively blocked U.S. offshore exploration, refusing to approve but a handful of deepwater permits in the Gulf. He said he wanted incentives for domestic drilling, then sought new limits on drilling leases.

"Oh, yes, Obama did call for more drilling in 2011... in Brazil. He traveled there to tell Brazil's leaders that he was looking forward to importing more of their oil. "We want to help with 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," Obama said."

Of course this makes America dependent on Brazil's oil production.  Meanwhile Brazil and China are drawing closer together as part of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), a group that is attempting to decrease American influence in the world.  (See rightwinggranny April 15, 2011).

We need to expand energy production in the United States now.  Otherwise we will find ourselves paying more to drive and more to heat our homes in the very near future.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about an aspect of the President's budget speech that I missed.  He cites an artice at wordpress.com which states:

"Called a "debt failsafe trigger," Obama's scheme would automatically raise taxes if politicians spend too much. According to the talking points distributed by the White House, the automatic tax increase would take effect "if, by 2014, the projected ratio of debt-to-GDP is not stabilized and declining toward the end of the decade."

"Let's ponder what this means. If politicians in Washington spend too much and cause more red ink, which happens on a routine basis, Obama wants a provision that automatically would raise taxes on the American people."

The taxpayers need to make sure Washington gets the message that the problem is the spending--not the taxes.

Walter Mondale posted an article at the Washington Post yesterday entitled, "As in 1984, we need the courage to raise taxes."  I do not support raising taxes.  I do however support changing the tax code.  According to Smart Money, in 2009 an estimated 47% of U. S. households did not pay any federal income tax.  When I hear that number, I assume that those are low income households, but that is not necessarily correct.  The article points out that a family of four (two adults and two children under 18) with an income of $50,250 a year claiming the standard deduction and four exemptions in 2010 had a tax bill of $2,800.  When you add in the child tax credit ($2000) and the make work credit ($800), they owe nothing.  There are many parts of America where a family can live quite comfortably on $ 50,250 a year.  Everyone should have some interest in what the tax rates are and what the government spends.  When half the people don't pay taxes, they have no reason to care.

We can get out of debt without raising taxes, but it will take fiscal restraint on the part of Washington and a closer look at our social spending and the impact on society of that spending.  The Great Society of the 1960's has not ended poverty--it has simply made everyone in the country a little poorer. 

The above chart comes from usgovernmentspending.com.  We need to think about the impact welfare spending has had on the American family.  We need to rewrite the rules so that generations of families do not remain on welfare and families are strengthened through the system--not destroyed.

The American people have been taxed enough.  It is time to elect people who will deal with the runaway spending that has become part of the culture of Washington.

Today's Daily Caller reports that South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint has introduced an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that would limit the terms of Senators and Representatives in Congress.  He suggests three terms for Representatives and two terms for Senators.  The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the kind of power base building we have seen in Washington that has made it almost impossible to enact any serious reform. 

The article quotes Senator DeMint:

"We need true citizen legislators who spend their time defending the consitution, not currying favor with lobbyists.  We need new leaders continually coming to Congress to ensure every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, not wasted on Washington special interests.  We must end the era of permanent politicians that has lead us to a $14 trillion debt and a pending fiscal crisis."

To amend the Constitution, two-thirds of Congress has to pass the amendment and 75 percent of the states have to vote for it.

Senator DeMint concludes:

"Let me be clear that term limits will only succeed when the same rules apply to everyone.  Self-term limits are a recipe for self-defeat, as the career politicians simply wait out the true reformers.  We must have term limits for all or term limits won't succeed."

I think this is a wonderful idea.

Wednesday's Washington Post posted an analysis of the recently passed budget deal to fund the remainder of 2011.  Originally, the Republicans claimed that the deal would cut spending by $38 billion, a little more than one third of the budget cuts promised.  That figure has rapidly decreased since the deal was passed.

Ed Morrissey posted a similar analysis at Hot Air yesterday.  I admit that I do not understand the logic of the process by which Washington spends money, but I think Mr. Morrissey's analysis is fairly understandable.  He cites an article at Politico which states:

"[W]hen CBO estimated the initial House bill in February, it projected that the $61.3 billion in nonemergency appropriations cuts would result in $9.2 billion in outlay reductions by Sept. 30 when measured against comparable outlay estimates two months earlier, on Dec. 20.

"By comparison, the precise appropriations cut now, $37.7 billion, translates into a vastly smaller sum, $352 million, using the same standard."

This is quite a change from $38 billion.  The Washington Post points out:

"When war funding is factored in the legislation would actually increase total federal outlays by $3.3 billion relative to current levels."

This is definitely not moving in the right direction.  The upcoming budget battles will be on raising the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget.  In the case of the debt ceiling, there will be dire predictions of what will happen if the Republicans do not go along with the President's ideas.  I think it's time for dire consequences.  If we don't stop the runaway spending now, we will never stop it.

This article is based on two articles--an article from Big Peace today and a Reuters story posted at Yahoo Finance yesterday.

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) have been meeting in China for the past several days.  According to the Reuters story:

"The BRICS group of emerging-market powers kept up the pressure on Thursday for a revamped global monetary system that relies less on the dollar and for a louder voice in international financial institutions."

The thing to keep in mind here is that Brazil is moving closer to China.  According to an article at Investment U today:

"Economic ties between Brazil and China have grown exponentially over the last decade. And the best evidence is that bilateral trade has jumped 1,300 percent.

"Newly minted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff's trip to China this week highlights a deepening partnership not only in business, but also in economic strategy."

The UK Telegraph reported on March 19 of this year:

"President Barack Obama has pledged that the United States will be a "major customer" for Brazilian oil in the coming years amid continuing unrest in the Middle East."

Today's Wall Street Journal posted its analysis of President Obama's budget speech.  The speech was given in response to Paul Ryan's budget plan to balance the budget.  Unfortunately it was a political speech, not a serious budget plan.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

"Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan's plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. "Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America," he said, supposedly pitting "children with autism or Down's syndrome" against "every millionaire and billionaire in our society." The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia."

The Journal concluded:

"Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors "a fundamentally different America than the one we've known throughout most of our history." Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President's political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis."

The best way to understand the tax code is to see who is actually paying the taxes.

The above chart is from a site called American.com.  It is the website of the American Enterprise Institute.  The chart below from the same site shows the effect that lowering capital gains taxes had on the revenue generated from those taxes during the years 2002 to 2007.

Lowering taxes does raise revenue.  President Obama lied.  It's that simple.

This may be a nothing story or it may be something we should be paying attention to.  I honestly don't know, so I am just putting it out here.

Press TV reported today that the British Embassy in Tehran is closed until further notice.  Iran's chargé d'affaires has recently tightened rules for visa issuance and instigated disputes and physical encounters between the people who were applying for visas and security personnel.

The article explains:

"The claimed security problem was enough for the people who were furious over irregularities to engage in physical encounters with the diplomatic police, the reports said.

"An unnamed embassy source also said that they have received text messages in which they are ordered not to return to work until further notice.

"Recently, there have been several reports of irregularities at the British embassy in Tehran, the last example of which was its refusal to issue entry visas for several Iranian private sector publishers who had applied for visas to attend the International London Book Fair." 

I think if I were a diplomat there are places I would rather be stationed than Iran. 

Intelligence information is a major factor in the war on terrorism.  Knowing where the terror cells are and what the current plan of attack is can save many lives.  As much as the use of waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may have been controversial, it probably saved a lot of lives in America and in other countries.  Terrorists are trained not to talk and when they do talk to give misleading or incomplete information.  Waterboarding tended to break through that without doing any permanent damage to the person being waterboarded.  It was a very useful tool after 911 in finding out what Al Qaeda had in store for America.

About two weeks ago, Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story about the capture of Umar Patek in Pakistan.  Mr. Patek is a suspected member of the al-Qaida-linked militant group Jemaah Islamiyah.  He is beleived to have been the group's deputy field commander in the nightclub bombings in Bali in 2002 that left 202 people dead, many of them foreigners.

The article states:

"Patek was one of the "last senior JI (Jemaah Islamiyah) commanders with significant experience" in the original Afghan al-Qaida camps and longstanding ties to the international jihadist network and its donors."

Needless to say, this man has a lot of information that would be very helpful to American efforts to prevent terrorist attacks in this country and to learn about terrorist connections around the world.  So what happened next?

On Tuesday of this week, Fox News reported:

"In a statement, White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor told Fox News, "We have an interest in Patek and would hope that he could be brought to justice for his role in the 2002 Bali bombing. Working through the usual intelligence and law enforcement channels, we stand ready to assist our partners in whatever way we can."

"Late Tuesday, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that the Pakistanis have been questioning Patek, and that the U.S. has sought access to him, but so far, that request has been denied.

"Unless there's a change, Patek will be sent directly from Pakistan to Indonesia where he is expected to stand trial for the Bali bombing in October 2002."

This is no way to run the war on terror.

Yahoo Finance posted an Associated Press story today about the meeting this week of the  world's largest emerging economies in southern China.  The nations attending include the expanded five-member bloc known as the BRICS--Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.  This is not a block of countries that is particularly friendly to the United States.

The article points out:

"Though largely an ad-hoc grouping at present, the BRICS have the potential to emerge as a new force in world affairs on the back of their massive share of global population and economic growth. With the inclusion of South Africa, the group accounts for 40 percent of the world's people, 18 percent of global trade and about 45 percent of current growth, giving them formidable heft when dealing with the developed economies."

How are Russia and China emerging economies and the U.S. and European Union not? 

The article further states:

""They need to decide whether to focus on boosting coordination among their members or simply representing emerging economies in their dealings with the developed nations," Zhang said.

"Regardless of the outcome of such debates, the growth of the BRICS represents an important attempt to create new centers of influence and prevent domination of the world economic order by one or two major players, said South Africa's ambassador to Beijing, Bheki Langa."

Generally speaking, it has been concluded that the fastest way to create wealth is to allow private property ownership and to take crippling restrictions off businessmen.  Freedom tends to grow economies better than dictatorships and tyrants.  Unfortunately two of the major players in this group are countries where freedom is only a distant dream--not a way of life.

Marc Theissen posted an article in Monday's Washington Post about the coming budget battles.  The article evaluates the spending cuts in the budget deal reached last week with the Republicans as a Republican victory.  Mr. Theissen's logic is as follows:

"Republicans succeeded in forcing Obama to accept some of the largest spending cuts in history. Why? Because the president wisely recognized that the political landscape had changed dramatically since 1995. If Obama was confident voters would have blamed the GOP for a shutdown again, the government would be closed as you read this. Instead, the president caved."

The writer then further argues that if President Obama was not willing to let the government shut down over $38.5 billion in cuts, he will not be willing to allow a cataclysmic government default. 

Mr. Theissen concludes:

"If negotiations stall, House Republicans could pass a series of small debt-limit increases, with spending cuts attached, to keep the government solvent. Obama would be in no position to veto such temporary measures -- because his veto would cause the government to default. Republicans can keep doing this until Obama capitulates. In the end, the president will have little choice but to swallow whatever spending reforms the GOP demands."

I really like the way this man thinks.  Mr. Theissen concludes:

"This is no time for Republicans to play small ball. In the debt-limit fight, the GOP enjoys a perfect storm of public support, political leverage and presidential weakness. This means Republicans have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something big. They must seize it. If Obama wants to raise the federal debt limit, the price should be the even deeper cuts and reforms proposed by Ryan - and a balanced budget amendment that would force Congress to implement them."

I hope someone in the Republican leadership reads Marc Theissen in the Washington Post!

This is a game we saw the Democrats play after George W. Bush was elected President.  It's called make the person who won the election's life so miserable that they may never run for anything again.  The delays in allowing W to set up his cabinet and staff and the stalling on judicial nominations were a disgrace, but the Democrats got away with it so they had no incentive to change their behavior.

Hot Air posted an article on Monday (with updates) about the Wisconsin election in which conservative Justice David Prosser has defeated liberal challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg.  The problem in the election results has to do with the fact that Kloppenburg was initially declared the winner until the final vote tally was rechecked and it was noted that the votes from heavily Republican Waukesha county had not been included in the totals. 

Hot Air reports:

"Read Mark Blumenthal's analysis at HuffPo(!) of how the new Waukesha numbers are more believable than the ones from election night and how the sort of recording error made by county clerk Kathy Nickolaus really isn't all that unusual. His is the third statistical model to lend credence to the updated vote totals since they were announced. And if that's not convincing enough, forget the statisticians and simply note that a paper in Brookfield -- where the "missing" votes were "found" -- actually published the correct vote total on election night. The votes were there all along, as tallied and reported by the City of Brookfield. The "error" came when Nickolaus forgot to include the updated numbers from the city in relaying her vote totals to the AP."

The article also points out that county clerk Kathy Nickolaus also found it unusual that they were called in to canvass on Wednesday morning instead of the usual Thursday procedure.  Ms. Nickolaus made an honest mistake in not saving the data from Waukesha county and including it in the number given to AP.  However, the total votes tallied and reported on election night were correct.

There is no fraud here, but I suspect that we will be hearing about these events for a while.

Yesterday's New York Times posted an article yesterday about Missouri's Attorney General, Chris Koster, who has joined other attorneys general in challenging the central provision of Obamacare.  Attorney General Koster has filed a "friend of the court" brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta.  The article also points out that Attorney General Koster was formerly a Republican state legislator who switched to the Democrat party in 2007.

The Times reports:

"In Missouri, a ballot referendum aimed at nullifying the law was approved by nearly three to one last year, and the legislature recently passed resolutions urging Mr. Koster to join the legal challenges. The state's lieutenant governor, a Republican, filed a lawsuit last year seeking to block the law."

Obviously, Obamacare is not popular in Missouri.  The only other Democrat who has joined the lawsuit was Attorney General Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana, who later became a Republican. 

Meanwhile the Weekly Standard reported yesterday:

"The latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows that Americans have now supported the repeal of Obamacare for 56 consecutive weeks (every single week since it was passed). In 55 of those weeks, including this one, Americans have supported repeal by double-digits (perhaps the political equivalent of a multi-hit game?). This week, repeal is favored by 10 points (51 to 41 percent), by 13 points among those who feel "strongly" (41 to 28 percent), by 16 points among independents (53 to 37 percent), and by 29 points among independents who feel "strongly" (44 to 15 percent)."  

I don't know what the future of Obamacare is.  I do know that the majority of Americans would like it repealed.  It would be nice if Congress would pay attention to the wishes of the American people.

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the "People's Budget."  The People's Budget is a document put together by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 76 liberal Democrats in the House.  This document was released just as President Obama prepares to release his budget plan.

The People's Budget is the Democrat response to the budget suggested by Congressman Paul Ryan.  The Democrats claim that their plan will eliminate the deficit in ten years; Paul Ryan's plan takes 25 years. 

The article explains how the Democrats plan to end the deficit:

"The caucus would create three new individual tax brackets for the highest incomes, topping out at 47 percent.  It would also raise the capital gains tax, the estate tax and corporate taxes.  It would create something called a "financial crisis responsibility fee: and a "financial speculation tax."  And of course it would repeal the Bush tax cuts."

The tax increases should not be a surprise:

"I'm as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I've been for years," Obama said in a press conference on Dec. 7, 2010. "In the long run, we simply can't afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I've championed and that they've opposed."

It is expected that the budget President Obama releases will repeal the Bush tax cuts.  It is not clear what new taxes the President will add.

Lest we forget, higher taxes place a drag on the economy; Democrats traditionally support raising taxes as a way to raise revenue; history shows that cutting taxes raises revenue and stimulates the economy.  This is not a time to raise taxes on anyone.

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing Andrew McCarthy, author of THE GRAND JIHAD, speak at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts.   Mr. McCarthy is a very well informed speaker on the subject of jihad--he was the man who led the prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, in which a dozen Islamic extremists were convicted of conducting terrorism against the US, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb NYC landmarks.

He began his talk with a reference to an internal memorandum from the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  This memorandum was uncovered in an investigation of a case by the federal government.  The memorandum showed that the Muslim Brotherhood in America described their purpose as a grand jihad aimed at the destruction of western civilization from within by sabotage.  He explained that the Muslim Brotherhood has been operating in this country in some form since the 1960's.

Mr. McCarthy made the point that America's focus has been on terrorism to the point that we have overlooked the ideology that fuels it.  The ideology represents a more profound threat than terrorism itself.  He pointed out that the first rule of law enforcement is to find out what motivates the criminals and who they are.  Because Americans are afraid of interfering with someone's freedom of religion, we have been reluctant to do that.  He pointed out that one advantage of civilian trials for terrorists was that during those trials the nexus between ideology and terrorism was revealed.

Mr. McCarthy defined jihad as the struggle to rid the community of non-Islamic influences.  The goal of jihad is a global caliphate (Islamic State).  That goal can be achieved through violence (as Al Qaeda) or through infiltration of a government and gradually taking over the institutions of that government (Muslim Brotherhood).  The Muslim Brotherhood is not averse to terrorism, but sees it as only one weapon in their arsenal.

The axis of the Muslim Brotherhood movement is the mosque and neighborhood center.  The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) has bought real estate for mosques and community centers in major cities throughout America.  NAIT is associated closely with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The most important Islamic organization in America is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).   This group is made up of graduates of the Muslim Student Association, which began in America in the 1960's.  Both the ISNA and the NAIT were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Case (in which several people were convicted of sending money to HAMAS).   Those convictions were handed down in 2008.  In 2009 when ISNA held its national convention, Valerie Jarad was the keynote speaker.  Evidently the convictions and naming of unindicted co-conspirators did not make an impression on our government.

After the peace deal that President Clinton brokered between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rubin, a law was passed in America making it illegal to provide material support to designated terrorist groups.  One of the first designated groups was HAMAS.  Since the Muslim Brotherhood and their associated groups had supported HAMAS, they needed a new group without that past history.  The created the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and called it a civil rights group to protect the rights of Muslims.  They wanted to form a group that had legal acumen and was media savvy.  They succeeded.  As a 'civil rights' organization, CAIR generally has been given access to government agencies. 

In conclusion, Mr. McCarthy reminded us that there are many patriotic Muslims who are aiding law enforcement in providing information on terrorists and making an effort the reform the radical aspect of Islam.  He also told us that the report of Team B2 found in the book SHARIA, THE THREAT TO AMERICA has been given to Congress.

One thing I took away from hearing Andrew McCarthy speak was that the radical views of some of the leaders of the mosques do not necessarily reflect the views of those who attend the mosques.  However, we need to be aware that there are people around us that are working against a free America as we know it, and we need to stay informed about the nature of the threat.

Today's Chicago Tribune reported that one Chicago school has outlawed lunches brought from home. 

According to the article:

"At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago's West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria."

The idea here is that the school cafeteria lunches are more nutritious and healthier than lunches packed at home.  Does anyone remember school cafeteria food? 

The article further states:

"Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district's food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

"At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad."

If you read the first sentence of the above quote, your mind begins to wander to such things as campaign contributions and kickbacks, but that's just idle thought--even in Chicago.  Hmmm.

It's cheaper to send a child to school with a ham (I'm not sure peanut butter is allowed in school anymore) sandwich, a juice box, and a bag of chips than it is to buy a lunch for $2.25.  I think this is an unnecessary intrusion into role of the parents and it also represents a significant expense--more than $10 a week for children's lunches.  I can understand not allowing soda to be brought into school for lunch, but I think the idea of banning homemade lunches is really over the top.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an editorial titled "The Tea Party's First Victory."  Not all of the conservatives are declaring victory, but let's look at where we have been and where we are.

The editorial states:

"This is getting to be a habit. President Obama ferociously resists tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts--right up to the moment he strikes a deal with Republicans and hails the tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts as his idea. What a difference an election makes."

The election of 2010 has changed the debate.  The Republicans (Tea Party members) control the House.  They do not have the Senate or the Presidency.  With that small majority they managed to change the discussion from how much we will increase spending to how much we will cut spending.

The editorial reports:

"Now the battle moves to the debt ceiling increase and Paul Ryan's new 2012 budget later this year, and there are lessons from this fight to keep in mind. One is to focus on spending and budget issues, not extraneous policy fights. Republicans have the advantage when they are talking about the overall level of spending and ways to control it. They lose that edge when the debate veers off into a battle over social issues."

I'm not sure I agree with that statement.  Is the funding of Planned Parenthood a social issue or a spending issue?  We need to keep in mind that according to Open Secrets, in the 2010 election cycle Planned Parenthood contributed $ 262,986 to Congressional Democrats and $2,000 to Congressional Republicans.  According to ABC News Planned Parenthood will receive $363 million in federal funding for the remainder of 2011.  The fact that organizations that receive federal funding can make campaign contributions is deeply troubling to me.

The Wall Street Journal makes a suggestion for future spending debates:

"We are not talking here about that hardy perennial, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that would easily become a lever for Democrats to push for higher taxes. Far better would be statutory limits on spending increases and debt as a share of GDP, sequesters that automatically cut spending if Congress exceeds those limits, supermajority rules for replacing those limits, and revisions of the budget baseline so that each year's budget begins at last year's spending levels, not with automatic increases.

"This is the kind of reform the public will understand is directly related to the debt limit, and one that Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama will find hard to oppose. Republicans should waste no time starting to explain their debt-limit terms, so voters also understand the GOP isn't toying with default as a political ploy."

It would be nice if both political parties could agree to this basic concept.

Yesterday France 24 reported that the Arab League has asked the UN Security Council for a no-fly zone over Gaza. 

The article states:

"...repeated Israeli air strikes have left at least 18 people dead since Thursday."

The article reports:

"The flare-up came after an anti-tank missile fired from Gaza hit an Israeli school bus on Thursday, wounding two people, one of them critically."

How skewed is the world when the objection is to a response by Israel to a Gaza missle aimed at a school bus.  Where is the outrage about targeting a school bus?

The opening paragraphs of the article state:

"Arab League chief Amr Mussa said on Sunday the organisation will ask the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza, which Israel has pounded with air strikes in response to rocket fire.

"Mussa told an emergency meeting of Arab League ambassadors that "the Arab bloc in the United Nations has been directed to ask for the convention of the Security Council to stop the Israeli aggression on Gaza and impose a no-fly zone.""

Why is it Israeli aggression when it is in response to rocket fire?

I am sure (yeah, right!) that any connection between these two events is purely coincidental, but the fact that they occurred in the same week is very interesting. 

Today's Jerusalem Post reports:

"The militant wing of Islamic Jihad announced that it was committed to a ceasefire with Israel "so long as Israel fulfills its responsibility and stops attacks against the Palestinian people in Gaza.""

Yahoo News posted a Reuters story today stating:

"Israel said on Sunday its new Iron Dome interceptor had successfully protected two major cities from Palestinian rockets in the past few days, and other countries were already expressing interest.

"The long-anticipated shield was deployed last Sunday outside the Gaza Strip -- days before the latest flare-up of fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants -- and has achieved a perfect record, shooting down at least eight rockets in mid-air, officials said."

I have a few questions about this.  Yahoo News reports:

"At least 120 rockets have been fired at southern Israel in the latest round of fighting, causing damage but no injuries. The two Iron Dome batteries, deployed near the cities of Ashkelon and Beersheba, are meant to shoot down only those rockets that will strike in designated areas."

How is 120 rockets a ceasefire?  Furthermore, Yahoo News reports:

"The Obama administration had secured $205 million to help Israel with production and deployment of Iron Dome, but it has been held up. Israeli President Shimon Peres, who recently visited the United States, urged the Americans to free up the cash, an aide said."

The Obama Administration has some very odd priorities on how it spends taxpayer money.  I should think investing in Israel's defense might save us a lot of money in the long run.  Anyway, I would like to know who considers 120 rockets fired at a country a ceasefire.

Hot Air posted an article today about the targeting of an Israeli school bus with an anti-tank missile launched in Gaza. 

The article pointed out:

"Only a week ago, Hague's office released a report on the world's 26 worst human rights violators. Israel was in the report, along with 25 actual human rights abusers. If, as Hague says above, he has reports that Hamas deliberately targeted the school bus (which it did), then this is not a "despicable and cowardly act." It is a human rights violation. It is a war crime. And yet, Hague doesn't use that language to describe it. Why is that? Why is it that his office can slander Israel as a violator of Palestinian human rights, but it can't call a war crime a war crime? The deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime. Hamas deliberately targeted a school bus full of children (it hoped)."

Hamas routinely targets civilians.  Sderot has been the target of random Kassam rocket attackes--between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets were launched at the city.  On July 4, 2008, Arutz Sheva reported:

"The children of Sderot will soon be able to run for cover from rocket attacks, even on the playground.  The new bomb shelter will look playful, however.

"The city is in the final stages of building a playground that includes a tunnel for a quick escape from Kassam rocket barrages, reports the Sderot Media Center (SMC).

"According to construction manager Boaz Etzion, "The idea of the park is that when there is a Color Red [incoming rocket] alarm, the children can run quickly to safety in the tunnels."

"...The escape tunnel, at a cost of 150,000 shekels ($46,000) is being built in the shape of a centipede to make it appear to be part of the playground and not like a bomb shelter."

This is the behavior of Gaza before it becomes part of the state of Palestine.  Do we have any reason to believe that Hamas in Gaza will behave better if a state is declared?  Do we want to encourage this sort of behavior in a nation that wants to become a state?  This is not a cultural norm that will be a positive contribution to world peace or world culture.  Can we support it?

Today's Washington Examiner reported  that just around midnight, the Senate and the House passed a six-day "bridge" bill to keep the government running while they draft the legislation that will keep the government running until the end of fiscal 2011 (September 2011). 

The Washington Examiner reports that the budget passed cuts spending $38.5 billion.  The Republicans originally wanted $61.5 billion, and the Democrats originally wanted $6.5 billion.

Just to put this agreement into perspective, CNS News reported today:

"The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September." 

We really do need to get spending under control.

Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story today stating:

"Not all policy "riders" were struck. One provision in the final deal would ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. A program dear to Boehner that lets District of Columbia students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools also survived."

Both of these riders are important for what they represent.  The Hyde Amendment is supposed to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortion--the rider simply brings the District of Columbia under that law, but it reminds us that the Hyde Amendment needs to be restated on a regular bases.  The voucher program in the District of Columbia is a desperately needed program in a city with failing schools.  It needs to continue and can serve as an example for other cities with failing schools.

This is not a perfect deal, but the big fights are looming--raising the debt limit and the 2012 budget.  The budget proposed by Paul Ryan is a workable way to get spending under control and bring future entitlement spending into line.  Hopefully, that budget will be given serious consideration as we move forward.

Yesterday the New York Post posted an article about the speculation that the United States will declare a Palestinian state in September without Israel's consent. 

The article reports:

"Abbas claims that the only item that needs to be finished on the way to statehood is for Israel to leave and delineate a border based on the 1949 armistice line.  Yet every document the Palestinians have signed with Israel since the 1993 Oslo Accords clearly states that declaring a state requires the agreement of both sides.

"To reach an agreement with Israel, Abbas would need to sign security arrangements, make concessions in Jerusalem and give up the Palestinian demand to flood Israel with Arab "refugees."

"Abbas, however, is politically weak, and making such concessions would spell his doom.  So, instead, he relies on a plan devised two years ago by his prime minister, Salem Fayyed, to declare a state in 2011 regardless of any progress in talks with Israel."

If this resolution moves forward, it has to go through the Security Council, where the United States has a veto.  A veto would create problems with America's relationship with Arab nations, not vetoing the move would be a nightmare for peace in the Middle East.  I have no doubt that the first thing a Palestinian state would do would be to arm itself to the teeth and attack Israel.  Their past behavior makes this a real possibility.  That move will not produce peace in the Middle East.  The President needs to speak up now and say that he will veto any move by Palestine to become a state without completing negotiations with Israel.

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article explaining why the military is not being paid if the government shuts down--they were paid in 1995. 

The article reports:

"During the 1995 shutdown, the Clinton Administration followed the OMB guidance issued during the Reagan Administration. The Obama Administration, it seems, is tacking a different direction.

"Let me be clear, the guidelines proposing to hold military paychecks are, according to the news reports, draft guidelines. It is possible the Obama Administration has abandoned these punitive guidelines. And, even if they implemented these guidelines, military personnel would most likely eventually receive their pay, once a budget agreement is reached. But, why even change the policy and subject our military to partisan political battles. The policy is certainly a change, but it doesn't provide much hope.

"Hopefully, they will clear this up quickly."

Think about this for a minute.  The Obama Administration is not using the OMB guidance and has made the decision not to pay the military during the shutdown.  I hope this changes--if it doesn't, I hope everyone who is part of a military family will vote all Democrats out of office in 2012.  We can't have leaders who play games with the military.

The article includes an update:

"Update: Aha, there is indeed an explanation for this. Military pay in 1995 wasn't as simple as Clinton releasing the funds. There was a defense appropriations bill in effect during that shutdown. Via Gabe Malor, a report from the Congressional Research Service:

"A frequent question is how this compares to the last government shutdown in 1995-1996. There were two shutdowns at that time, one of five days, from November 13 through November 19, 1995, and one of 21 days, from December 15, 1995 through January 5, 1996. The first shutdown was not long enough to affect pay checks, and DOD was not affected by the second because defense appropriations were enacted on December 1, so funding was available.

"So it's not The One's fault that the military isn't getting paid. (Well, it is insofar as he and Reid refuse to agree to Boehner's new resolution, but it's not solely his fault.) It's actually ... Reid's and Pelosi's fault for not passing a 2011 budget last year when they had a chance. The record stands corrected!"

Meanwhile, we haven't even started the real debate on the 2012 budget!

Accusations are flying as to who is responsible for the pending government shutdown.  The thing to keep in mind as the feathers (and other things) fly is that Congress is required by law to pass the budget by October 1.  If you remember, on October 1, 2010, the House, the Senate, and the Presidency were all controlled by the Democrat party.  They chose not to pass a budget for fear of thier ideas impacting the coming election in a negative way.  After the election they somehow never got around to passing a budget, even though they were the majority party until January 2011.  Any shutdown is the responsibility of the Democrat Congress that did not pass a budget.  Why then is there a media campaign to blame John Boehner?

Today's Daily Caller reports:

"A group of Washington, D.C. residents say they plan to leave their trash at House Speaker John Boehner's house in the event of a government shutdown, an action their Facebook page says is retribution for the loss of city services a shutdown would cause."

Why not leave the trash at the White House or at Harry Reid's house? 

The group said that if the shutdown occurs, they will list Speaker Boehner's address on Facebook so that people know where to bring their trash.

I am totally offended by this group's actions.  First of all, they are placing blame where it doesn't belong, second of all, they are acting like petulant children.  I hope they will rethink their plans and choose to act like grown-ups.

The Washington Post reported today that the Republicans in the House had passed a one-week continuing resolution to keep the government running.  The President has vowed to veto that legislation if it ever reaches his desk.  So how did we get here?

Congress is required by law to pass a budget by the end of October.  Last year, the Democratic Congress chose not to pass a budget--it was an election year and they were afraid of the consequences of taking a stand on anything.  That is the reason we are having this discussion now instead of last fall. 

It looks as if the President believes that a government shutdown will help him politically.  That may be a result of some focus group polling or that just may be a calculation based on events the last time the government was shut down.  I am not sure who wins in this mess.  The 24-hour news cycle may play a role in how this turns out--any pictures of frustrated tourists trying to get into a national park can be countered by a reminder of how we got here.

Whatever happens next, we need to keep in mind that we are here because the Democrats in Congress and the President did not do their jobs last fall.  That fact should not get lost in the shuffle.

On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported on a Supreme Court case involving tax breaks for people who gave charitable donations to support organizations that provide scholarships to private schools, many of which have religious affiliations.   At issue was whether or not the tax breaks were legal since some religious schools were involved. 

The article also reports:

"By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that Arizona taxpayers have no right to allege in court that the state's tax-credit program violates the First Amendment prohibition of government "establishment of religion." The decision upheld the program without addressing the allegation that it is unconstitutional, and effectively overruled decades of precedent permitting lawsuits against government programs that subsidize religious institutions through tax incentives."

There are a number of other states that have similar programs--Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. 

The Wall Street Journal reported the following from the written decisions:

"Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that the exception applied only to government appropriations intended to subsidize religion. "A dissenter whose tax dollars are 'extracted and spent' knows that he has in some small measure been made to contribute to an establishment [of religion] in violation of conscience," Justice Kennedy wrote.

"In contrast, a tax credit implicates funds never collected in the first place. "When the government declines to impose a tax," Justice Kennedy wrote, "there is no such connection between dissenting taxpayer and alleged establishment."

"In her first major dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called the distinction between tax appropriations and credits "arbitrary." "Either way, the government has financed the religious activity. And so either way, taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy," she wrote, joined by the court's three other liberals."

There is another aspect to this case.  As the discussion of the budget deficit heats up, I believe that the charitable contributions deduction will come under close scrutiny.  At this point, charitable donations to both religious and secular organizations may be looked at to be eliminated to raise more revenue.  This would be a huge mistake--many church and secular organizations perform vital work providing medical care, food, and housing for the poor and elderly.  To cut their funds at a time when the government may be forced to cut its own programs would be a serious error in judgment.  The only way it would make sense would be if the overall tax rate was dropped significantly in conjunction with the elimination of these deductions.  The danger there of course is that the tax rate could be raised later after the deductions were taken out.

President Obama seems to be acting like someone who won the lottery.  He is traveling, throwing lavish parties, and fundraising, but where is he when the country needs leadership?  Yesterday CNS News posted a story stating the following:

"Reporting from Baghdad, Iraq yesterday, NBC's Tom Brokaw said the Saudi Arabian monarchy is "so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt" that it has sent senior officials to the Peoples' Republic of China and Russia to seek expanded business opportunities with those countries."

This is no joke.  We live in a dangerous world.  America needs allies to help keep the bad guys in check.  What in the world is going on?

Mr. Brokaw also reported that the situation in Iraq is fragile--both economically and politically. 

The article concludes:

""So Iraq is a reminder of just how difficult it is to establish a democracy in this part of the world," said Brokaw.  "After all, we've been at war here for eight years now, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and thousands and thousands of lives have been lost on both sides.""

We need a President who is on the job and paying attention.  I am not sure we have one right now.  It is also important that the President remember who our friends are and treat them with respect.  Mubarak was a dictator, but his policies were a force for peace in the Middle East.  I don't think we will like the new government.  The situation in Libya seems to be going downhill rapidly.  We need a President paying attention and looking at the big picture.

An Evening with Andrew C. McCarthy, Author, "The Grand Jihad"

I have no idea whether or not the government will shut down over the current budget debate.  I do, however, want to remind everyone of one fact--at the time that the 2011 budget was supposed to have been passed, the House, the Senate, and the Presidency were all controlled by the Democrats and they chose not to pass a budget (they were required by law to pass a budget by October).  If there is a shutdown now, it is because the Democrats did not pass a budget in October when they had the chance.  They didn't have the courage to take a stand then, and we are paying for it now.

CNS News is reporting today that CBO is saying it "can't conceive of anyway" that the economy can continue past 2037 given its current trajectory.  That sounds like it is time to cut spending. 

The article reports on the budget proposed by Representative Paul Ryan:

"Ryan's proposal, which cuts $5.8 trillion in government spending over the next decade, would provide Medicare beneficiaries with subsidies to purchase private insurance starting in 2022.  The proposal would also end taxpayer support of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and provide no funding for the implementation of the health care reform law passed by Congress last March."

The article quotes Representative Ryan:

""So, we have to go out and give the country a choice," he said. "We know the path the president's put the country on. It's a path that I fundamentally believe transforms this country into something it was never designed to be - into a cradle-to-grave social welfare state and economic stagnation."

""We are offering a country that is true to this country's founding principles that is prosperous, that is pro-growth, that lives within its means, that is an opportunity society with a sound, resilable safety net," said Ryan."

I don't know if the government will shut down or not.  What I do know is that we need to get serious about cutting spending and cutting duplicated programs and programs that do not reflect the goals and ideals of the American people.  If the Democrat party will not make serious proposals to cut government spending, the government will probably be shut down.

Today's Daily Caller posted a story about some of the disburrsements made in the process of implementing Obamacare.  The Early Retiree Reinsurance Program (ERRP) is a $5 billion grant program set up to pay health insurance for early retirees.  The Washington Post has received  $573,217, and CBS has recieved $722,388. 

According to the article:

"The ERRP, which Republicans call a slush fund, provides taxpayer money to Obama administration-selected states, companies and labor unions with already-in-place early retiree health insurance programs, and aims to make certain that their employees who retire early still have health insurance coverage before they reach Medicare eligibility age. Almost $2 billion of the $5 billion fund, which was supposed to last until 2014, has already been distributed to corporations. New projections expect the funding to run out before the end of 2012, if not sooner."

Does anyone think that news organizations will objectively report on Obamacare when it is putting that kind of money in their pockets?   Also, have you ever seen a government program that did not run out of money before the expected time? 

The article further states:

"In addition to CBS Corporation and the Washington Post Company, recipients of ERRP funding include the United Auto Workers union, which secured $206,798,086 in taxpayer money, AT&T, which took in $140,022,949, and General Electric (GE), which raked in $36,607,818. GE has made headlines recently for not paying any U.S. taxes last year. IBM got $12,989,690 in taxpayer money.

"Verizon pulled $91,702,538 in taxpayer cash, too, and General Motors received $19,002,669. More than $6 million went to different Teamsters groups nationwide, and millions more went to the United Mine Workers, United Food and Commercial Workers, the AFL-CIO and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)."

This is a practice that needs to be stopped immediately.  It doesn't even remotely pass the smell test.  We really can't afford this.

Today's Worcester Telegram posted a story about two organizations calling for voters to voluntarily show identification when voting in the 6th Worcester District House race on April 12 and the general election on May 10.

The groups, Empower Massachusetts" and "Show ID to Vote," are launching an "integrity of the vote" campaign. 

According to the article:

""In Charlton," Ms. Varley said, "they walk in with ballots in a cart with locked drawers. They are banded together. There's a police officer with his weapon on bringing them in with the town clerk.

""In Southbridge the next day, they're brought in, in cracked, broken, taped-sealed, not even Rubbermaid, like Target knockoff boxes -- where the ballots are just thrown in. They're not wrapped in rubber bands. They're not sorted in any way. Visually it was stunning."

"Southbridge Town Clerk Madaline I. Daoust said the state doesn't have standard ballot-handling practices, but she insisted armed Southbridge police officers brought ballot containers in.

"She conceded that one of the five bins was broken, but this was atypical." 

In a world where you can't buy a bottle of wine or a pack of cigarettes without showing some sort of picture identification, why in the world can you vote without proving who you are.  A fair, honest election is a necessary part of our form of government.  I hope the trend of showing id when you vote will catch on. 

This is the visual representation of what Paul Ryan's budget proposal means.  The questions is whether we choose to continue on the path we are on and create massive federal debt or whether we decide to stop the spending now--before it is too late.  The chart is from a Wall Street Journal article written by Paul Ryan and posted today. 

Mr. Ryan states in his article:

"The president's recent budget proposal would accelerate America's descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

"Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president's budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion."

As the private sector has grown smaller in the recession, the government sector has grown larger, with salaries at about 140 percent of those in the private sector.  Until we stop that trend, the nation will not return to prosperity.

One of the more interesting ideas in Paul Ryan's budget is to bring Medicare under the same sort of program used for Congress.  It is a private program with government subsidies, but not directly funded by the government.  Because it is a private program, it runs more efficiently and costs less.  The plan also includes proposals for tax reform--making the tax code less complicated and lowering overall tax rates.  Both of these ideas would be wonderful if put into practice, the question is whether or not they will be stopped by lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington.  The time of catering to lobbyists and special interests is over--we can't affort it anymore.  The suggestions in this budget proposal would be a good first step in bringing the country back to prosperity and back to the economic principles it was founded on.  The budget Mr. Ryan has proposed needs to move forward.

This picture is from Power Line.  It is a Michael Ramirez cartoon, click here for a larger version.

The bottom line here is simple.  The Republicans are asking for a 1.59% budget cut and the Democrats are asking for .86%.  That is what all the ruckus is about--less than 1 percent of the total budget.  Good grief!

Everyone makes mistakes.  The question becomes what you do about them when you discover them.  The fallout from a recent mistake may be very telling.

On Friday, Richard Goldstone posted an editorial in the Washington Post about the Goldstone Report.  The report was issued at the request of the UN after a fact finding study of the war between Israel and Gaza after numerous rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza. 

Mr. Goldstone points out that his report found evidence of potential war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.  He states that the crimes committed by Hamas were intentional--their rockets were aimed indiscriminately at civilian targets.

The article reports:

"The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee's report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy."

Mr. Goldstone further states:

"As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel's cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted."

The bottom line here is very simple.  Israel went into Gaza to stop the firing of rockets on civilian populations.  Hamas used civilians as human shields, which they have historically done, and innocent people were killed.  The UN Human Rights Council is not populated by free democracies--a few of its members are China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Uganda.  Libya is currently suspended from the Council.

Until the UN decides to include the rockets fired at Israel's civilian population on a regular basis in its investigations, there is no way their findings will be valid.  The UN stated as its original goals the promotion of international law and international security, the promotion of economic development, social progress, human rights, and world peace.  It has instead become a forum for some of the nastiest tyrants in the world to achieve legitimacy.  It is time for the United Nations to pack their bags and go home.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal posted the following statistic:

"Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government."

This becomes an even more interesting statistic when you add in the fact that government workers are twice as likely to be unionized than private sector workers.  What this means is that a large part of the money flowing into unions is from the taxpayers that pay the salaries of government workers.

The article points out:

"...Don't expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles."

If we intend to grow the American economy we need to go back to being a nation of people who work for or start private companies, not a nation of civil servants.

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

This is a chart from a Wall Street Journal article posted today.  It is based on numbers from the Office of Management and Budget and shows government spending as a percentage of America's gross domestic product.  Today the Republicans will be introducing a budget that cust spending by $4 trillion dollars in order to curb the growth of government. 

The article points out:

"Though Rep. Ryan based the Medicare portion of his budget on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat, Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time budget expert, the current plan isn't likely to get much Democratic support. Instead, it will set up a broad debate over spending and the role of government heading into the 2012 general election."

That is a very telling comment.  The Medicare plan is based on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat and the Democrats will probably not support it.  Unfortunately this is another example of putting party politics ahead of the good of the country. 

The article concludes:

"Ms. Rivlin said in an interview Sunday she would have preferred a plan that phased in more quickly and left a traditional Medicare program as a default option for seniors. But overall she supported Mr. Ryan's idea. "What Democrats have to realize is we have to do something," Ms. Rivlin said. "Current policy on Medicare is not sustainable. You can worry about how you structure a premium support program, but I think it's a good way to think about the future of Medicare.""

We cannot continue to spend at the rate we are currently spending.  I hope we avoid a government shutdown, but I don't think we can continue on the path we are going.  It was interesting that the Democrat talking points were revealed last week.  Expect to hear the word "extreme" thrown around a lot, and expect to see very little movement on the Democrat side--the Democrats believe they will gain if the government shuts down.

Hot Air posted an article yesterday about the Early Retiree Reinsurance Program, a part of Obamacare which has already spent over $1.7 billion.  The purpose of the plan is to help companies pay the healthcare costs of their early retirees, but let's see where the money actually went.

According to the article:

"The list that follows is like a Who's Who of big campaign donors, unions, and public employee groups. Six of the top ten recipients are pension systems for public employees. The United Auto Workers, already $3.4 richer from the auto bailout, topped the list with an award of almost $207 million. General Electric, which paid no taxes at all in 2010 and whose CEO is a darling of the White House, received $36.6 million, good for 11th place on the list.

"AT&T, which placed second on the list, spent slightly under $15.4 million on lobbying efforts in 2010 and will rake in over $140 million from just this portion of Obamacare. Verizon, third on the list, will make $91.9 million on its $16.75 million 2010 lobbying investment."

This is not a pretty picture.  We need to find a way to turn off the money flow from the government to campaign donors.  I suspect that this has always been a problem, but it just seems much more blatant right now.  The government is broke.  It is time to bring spending under control.  Giving money to corporations who have already reported huge profits makes no sense.

Today's Jerusalem Post posted a story about Denis Avery, a British soldier captured in World War II, who swapped uniforms with a Dutch Jew in order to sneak into Auschwitz to see first-hand what was happening inside. 

The article reports:

"After weeks of preparation, including bribes to a guard, Avey twice swapped uniforms with a Dutch Jew of roughly the same height to sneak into the camp where he spent the night.

"On both occasions the men managed to change back into their own clothes, despite the risk of discovery and certain death.

""I did my homework over weeks and weeks, but the common denominator of all that was a tremendous amount of luck," Avey said in an interview to promote his biography "The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz", co-written by Rob Broomby and published in Britain by Hodder & Stoughton."

Mr. Avery has finally told his story in his biography. 

The article further states:

"Despite its dark content, the story ends on a note of hope.

"Avey recently discovered that a Jew called Ernst survived Auschwitz and recorded his testimony on video.

"In that testimony he talked about a soldier -- Avey -- who arranged for him to get 10 packs of cigarettes from England which he swapped for food and new soles on his shoes without which he said he would not have survived the death march.

""I thought he was dead," said Avey. "I couldn't believe it.""

The source of this article is a story on a website called Fleming and Hayes posted on April 3rd.  The Secure Communities Program is a federal programs which requires anyone arrested for a crime to have their fingerprints sent to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).  Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has been holding hearings around the state that are supposed to be forums for discussing the implementation of the program. 

Generally speaking, the forums have not been well publicized and special interest groups that oppose the measure have been the ones showing up.  Some members of the Massachusetts Tea Party attended today's meeting in Lawrence.

The article reports some of what went on in today's meeting in Lawrence:

"Commissioner Curtis Wood of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) opened the meeting with an overview of what the Secure Communities program means, and then made an outrageous claim that misrepresented the Arizona illegal immigration law. He was summarily called on that during the commentary part of the meeting. Secretary Mary Heffernan of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) took most of the questions from the audience and could hardly answer anything. All she said was "I can't answer that", or "I don't know, what a good question", or "that's why we are having these meetings, ie, to get this input from you". It's all an effort to stall. All this is for them is media attention to convey the desired image that Secure Communities is flawed and should not be implemented. Their goal was a discussion of why this should not be done. Her excuse was the state really doesn't understand this program and needs more time to get input from people in communities. They just want to drag this out. She said they want to be very careful and not rush into anything. She was just unbelievable. Secretary Heffernan was asked again as she was asked in the last meeting in Framingham if she invited anyone from ICE, and she said No, but that she will. She said that last time. ICE will not come unless invited. Heffernan and others were maligning ICE in commentary, and ICE should be there to set the record straight. I talked to tea party leaders, and steps will be taken to ensure this invitation is extended to ICE by Heffernan's office."

I have no idea why these people do not want criminals fingerprinted to check to see if they are here legally.  It seems as if common sense would dictate protecting our borders during a time of international terrorism.  Please follow the above link to the article to read about the further problems with the forum. 

The next meeting of the Secure Communities forum is in Waltham on April 16th.

CNN posted a beautiful story today about a Japanese fisherman who decided to ride out the tsumani that hit Japan.  When the tsumani came, Susumu Sugawara took his boat "Sunflower" to ride out the wave. 

"I knew if I didn't save my boat, my island would be isolated and in trouble," he tells CNN.

He said that he rode out four or five huge waves before the sea became calm and he knew he had passed the tsumani.  He then pumped the water out of his boat and returned to his island to search for his family. 

The article reports:

"For twenty days, he has been making hourly trips to the mainland. For the first two weeks at least he provided almost the only connection with it. Without Sugawara and the Sunflower, the island would have been completely cut off.

"He doesn't ask passengers for money if they have none. Those that can, pay just 300 yen (US$3.5) towards fuel.

"Oshima is an island of just 3,500 people. Locals say 35 of them are confirmed dead and some are still missing, though they don't know how many. Others are believed to have taken their boats out to sea and tried to ride the tsunami like Sugawara but didn't make it."

The people on the island have worked together to get food and to help each other recover from the tsumani.  Mr. Sugawara not only risked his life to save his island, he continues to help the recovery effort every day.

Obviously that is not an original quote.  It does, however, apply to some recent events in Florida and in Afghanistan.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about Pastor Terry Jones, who burned a Koran in Florida.  An Afghan mob then attacked and killed some United Nations workers saying that it was because Pastor Jones burned the Koran.

I'm not a big fan of Koran burning--I think it's a  little dumb for many reasons.  It really doesn't prove a point, and it just seems to provide an excuse for bad behavior.  However, I do not feel that murder is an appropriate response. 

Ed Morrissey points out:

"Interestingly, I had a conversation about this with a family member yesterday. While I agreed that Jones was a publicity hound looking for attention, that doesn't make him responsible for murder. The only people responsible for murders are those who commit them, and those who specifically incite them to kill.  Any other position eventually wipes out free speech, free religious practice, and freedom altogether.  If we held others responsible for the acts of every nutcase whose violent reactions may or may not have connections to something they did or said, we would have no speech at all -- a point we made repeatedly during the Left's Loughner frenzy, which they conveniently forgot during the Madison protests."

One aspect of Sharia Law, which Muslims institute in countries they control, is the severe limitation on free speech.  Criticizing Islam can have a death sentence attached to it.  That is not the way we run the government here.  Pastor Jones' burning of the Koran may not have been smart or tactful, but under American law, he does have the right to do that.  The fact that murderous people would use that act as an excuse to kill innocent people says more about them than it does about Pastor Jones.  If we don't learn to speak up now and exercise our right to free speech, we may well lose it.  The radical Muslims are a murderous group of people, but we cannot let that cause us to lose our right to free speech.

The Detroit News reported yesterday that the presidential limousine and some law enforcement vehicles will be exempt from the President's directive that all federal vehicles purchased starting 2015 be advanced technology models.  How advanced is the technology if the President won't use it in his limousine and his security vehicles?

The article goes on to explain why the President supports hybrids and why he can't have a hybrid.  Evidently it has to do with the weight of the presidential limousine--the car is reinforced to withstand various nasty things that might happen to it.  That's all very well, but this is my problem--a standard is being set, a rule is being made, and immediately someone in power does not have to abide by that rule.  There is one standard that is imposed on the 'common man' and another standard for the 'uncommon man.'   There may be a logical reason to exempt the presidential limousine, but is there also a logical reason to require federal vehicles to be hybrids? 

The technology for electric cars is not perfect--there was an article at a website called The Car Electric about the impact of cold weather on electric cars.  Cold weather significantly impacts the distance the car can go on after charging the battery both because batteries are less efficient in cold weather and because of the drain on the battery caused by using the heater to keep the driver warm.  The electric car simply moves the source of power from oil to electricity.  The electricity still has to be generated and is much less efficient for powering a vehicle than the traditional gasoline.  Green cars may be in our future, but I am not sure they will be electric.

My final question on this requirement for 'green cars' in the government is simple, "If green cars are such a great idea, why are we waiting until 2015--well after the 2012 elections?"

We seem to be at war in Libya.  The news tells us that we are no longer providing air support, but various news sources are reporting that we now have Marine boots on the gound there (google "Marines in Libya" for further details).  But how did we get there?  Should we be there?  I honestly don't have the answer to the second question.  I have the opinion that a new government may not be our friend, even if we help establish it, but I really don't know.  But I think the question of how we got there is interesting.

According to a press release put out by Senator John Ensign:

"...While Secretary Clinton has continued to refer to S. Res. 85 as a Senate endorsement of the President's establishment of a no-fly zone, I'd like to point out to the American people that this talking point is very misleading.

 

"Senate Resolution 85 received the same amount of consideration as a bill to rename a post office; it was 'hotlined' and there was no debate allowed on this issue and no legislative language provided to consider.  There was no vote.

 

"S. Res. 85 described a no-fly zone as a "possible" course of action for the U.N. Security Council's consideration.  It did not instruct the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to take action, let alone authorize a military operation.

 

"Using the hotline process for S. Res. 85 as a congressional endorsement for the President's policy is simply not an adequate use of Congress' role in authorizing military action.

 

"The Administration unilaterally developed, planned and executed its no-fly zone policy. President Obama consulted the UN, NATO and Arab League, but did not consult what is mandated under our laws and Constitution. There was no Congressional approval or oversight of this military commitment.

 

"S. Res. 85 simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force.  It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.

 

• That is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force.
• That is not the political equivalent of an authorization to use force.

 

"So what is S.Res. 85?  It is a disrespectful checking of the box by this Administration for congressional approval of its unilateral military decision."

 

Andrew McCarthy posted an article on Congress' role in our involvement in Libya at The Corner at National Review Online.  This is not a casual adventure--it is a war.  People will get killed.  If Gadaffi stays in power, there will be a slaughter of those who opposed him so that he can remain in power.  At this stage of the game, the best thing we can do is send in a sniper.  There will be a short period of chaos that will follow the death of Gadaffi, but I think that action will save the maximum number of lives.

Y Net News posted a story on Wednesday stating that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a speech saying that the 'occupation' of Palestine by Israel must end.  I don't know whether Ban Ki-moon doesn't know his history or just chooses to ignore it.

In the Balfour Declaration of 1919, Britain made a commitment to work toward the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the vast wasteland (at the time) designated as the Palestinian territory.  On January 4, 1919, a formal agreement was signed in London to bring the Jewish homeland into existence.  Signing the agreement were His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal ibn-Hussein, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Chaim Weitzman, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization.  Later the League of Nations codified and approved the boundaries set up.  The nation of Israel that was formed at that time included what is now Jordan and all the land the Palestinians are currently claiming.  Later, 80 percent of the land given to Israel was taken from them to form the country of Transjordan, which was to be the Palestinian State.  That was part of a 1922 British Mandate.  The concept of another Palestinian State was born after the 1967 war, when Israel took back some of the land she had originally been promised.  As Walid Shoebat has said, "Why is it that on June 4th 1967, I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?"  The push for a Palestinian state by the Arab nations is a smoke screen being used to reduce Israel to indefensible borders with hostile neighbors and reach their long term goal of driving Israel into the sea.  For the Arab states, the problem is not how large Israel is--it is that Israel is.

The UN has been very quick to criticize Israel for her settlements.  At the same time, the UN has been very reluctant to criticize the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.  That really tells you all you need to know.