May 2011 Archives

As we gear up for the 2012 election (yes, I know it is waaay too early), many states are looking at ways to cut back on the amount of voter fraud.  Many states saw fraudulent voter registration in the last election.  There have been many stories across the internet about the investigations of these problems.  Houston Votes was an organization that registered 25,000 new voters for the 2008 election.  A later investigation by an organization called True The Vote found that only 1,793 of those were actually legally registered voters.  (RightWingGranny.com).

On Sunday the San Francisco Chronicle posted an article stating:

"Less than 18 months before the next presidential election, Republican-controlled statehouses around the country are rewriting voting laws to require photo identification at the polls, reduce the number of days of early voting or tighten registration rules."

Why is it that only Republican-controlled statehouses are trying to prevent voter fraud?  Where are the Democrats? 

Democrats complain that the requirement for voter ID blocks young voters, elderly voters and minority voters from being able to vote.  I am not an expert on this, but how do the people in that group buy cigarettes, alcohol, or cough medicine?  I really think that if you have to show identification to purchase these things, it is not unreasonable to have to show some form of identification to vote.

Again, it is the interesting that the Democrats don't seem to support measures to prevent voter fraud.

The Hill reported today that this will be the week for Congress to begin work on the debt ceiling.  The first vote, tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, will be on a bill to raise the debt ceiling with no spending cuts or reforms.  Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.), the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, sponsored the bill.  Representative Camp says that he does not plan to vote for the bill and expects the bill to be voted down.  The purpose of the bill is to send a clear message to the President that the House is serious about spending cuts and debt reduction. 

The article at The Hill lists the schedule for Washington this week.  Some of the events scheduled fof the coming week:

The House Appropriations Committee takes up the spending bill for the Food and Drug Administration.

 The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is holding a hearing on "Cybersecurity: Assessing the Nation's Ability to Address the Growing Cyber Threat."

A House Appropriations subcommittee will hold a hearing on the 2012 budget for the U.S. Capitol Police.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a hearing on "Making the Gulf Coast Whole Again: Assessing the Recovery Efforts of BP and the Obama Administration After the Oil Spill."

The House (Select) Intelligence Committee will have a closed hearing on "Israel/Palestinian Authority Update."

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on "The American Energy Initiative: H.R.909, A Roadmap for America's Energy Future."

A House Homeland Security subcommittee will hold a hearing on "Denying Safe Havens: Homeland Security's Efforts to Counter Threats from Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia."

This is definitely a week to pay attention.

This story comes from the Democratic Underground.  It can be found at different places on the internet.  Supposedly it comes from a police log in Sarasota, Florida.  I have no idea whether or not it is true--I just think it is a great story.  Unfortunately, as a senior citizen, I can relate.

This is directly from the website listed above:

An elderly Florida lady did her shopping and, upon returning to her car, found four males in the act of leaving with her vehicle. She dropped her shopping bags and drew her handgun, proceeding to scream at the top of her lungs, "I have a gun, and I know how to use it! Get out of the car!"

The four men didn't wait for a second threat. They got out and ran like mad. The lady, somewhat shaken, then proceeded to load her shopping bags ino the back of her car and got into the driver's seat. She was so shaken that she could not get her key into the ignition. She tried and tried, and then she realised why. It was the same reason she had wondered why there was a Frisbee and two 12 packs of beer on the front seat.

A few minutes later, she found her own car parked four or five spaces farther down. She loaded her bags into the car and drove to the police station to report her mistake. The sergeant to whom she told th story couldn't stop laughing. He pointed to the other end of the counter, where four pale men were reporting a car-jacking by a mad elderly woman described as white, less than five feet tall, glasses, curly white hair, and carrying a large handgun. No charges were filed.

There is nothing I can add to this!

Please take the time today to remember those who have given their lives so that we may be free.

Happy Memorial Day

Tomorrow is Memorial Day.  It is the day we honor all those who sacrificed their lives for our freedom and for the cause of freedom around the world.  It might be good to remember that there were people who did not want us to get involved in World War II, but when we got involved after Pearl Harbor, the country united behind our military.  It might also be good to remember that after Japan attacked us, we attacked Germany.  Sometimes war is not a logical thing.

Yesterday the Weekly Standard posted an article about a recent study conducted by Stanford education professor William Damon, in which students were asked what American citizenship means to them.  The responses were not encouraging.

The article listed some of the responses:

"We just had that the other day in history. I forget what it was."

"I mean, being American is not really special.... I don't find being an American citizen very important."

"I don't know, I figure it really shouldn't mean anything."

"I don't want to belong to any country. It just feels like you are obligated to this country. I don't like the whole thing of citizen.... I don't like that whole thing. It's like, citizen, no citizen; it doesn't make sense to me. It's like to be a good citizen.... I don't know, I don't want to be a citizen ... it's stupid to me."

Wow.  Professor Damon points out in the article:

""Sure it's important to say we're part of the world community," said Damon. "But in literal fact, students are not learning to become citizens of the world." They become American citizens. Or at least we hope--the idea of assimilation, a melting pot, is also becoming a notion of the past. As for teachers who talk about the American Dream being dead, Damon says that is the worst thing they can say--"they are killing these children's hopes and aspirations, detaching them from country." He also pointed out that in Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, King says his dream "is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.""

America is not, nor will it ever be, perfect.  However, we are free.  Women drive; they participate in government.  Our income is determined by the things we do--not by the government.  We live where we want to live and travel where we want to travel.  We are free to worship the god of our choice at the place of our choice.  There are a lot of countries in the world that do not fit that description.  We need to teach our children to be grateful for their freedom and for the opportunities that they have.  Many men and women paid a high price for those freedoms.

As President Obama plays footsie with the Palestinians at the expense of Israel, Hamas is launching rockets into the western Negev. 

The article at Arutz Sheva reports that:

"After the strike by the laser-guided missile made in Russia and smuggled from Iran, IDF ground units targeted 11 terrorist cells in northern and southern Gaza, and the Air Force strafed 15 terrorist sites, including terror infrastructure sites, Hamas outposts, smuggling tunnels and weapons manufacturing and storage facilities."  

Let's look at this a minute.  This was a laser-guided Russian missile smuggled in from Iran.  The article points out that last month Hamas signed a Unity Agreement with the Fatah movement, headed by Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.  Abbas is publicly committed to ending all violence and incitement against Israel.  I think what we have here is a failure to communicate.

I don't think there should be a Palestinian state until the attacks on Israel stop.  I also think that any government that includes Hamas should be considered a terrorist government and should be driven out of power.

Yesterday Michael Barone posted an article at the Washington Examiner about the use of the word 'unexpected' in the economic reports issued during the Obama administration.  The article gives five examples of bad economic news coupled with the word 'unexpectedly' just during the past two weeks.

The article asks:

"Which raises some questions.  As Instapundit reader Gordon Stewart, quoted by Reynolds on May 17, put it, "How many times in a row can something happen unexpectedly before the experts start to, you know, expect it? At some point, shouldn't they be required to state the foundation for their expectations?""

Good point.  All this unexpectedness (I think I made that word up, but I'll bet you know what it means!) could be the result of the expectation that the increased government spending policies of this President and the previous Congress would end the recession quickly.  Obviously, that has not been the case.  If you look at the political demographics of the mainstream media, you will see that generallly they want President Obama re-elected.  Unless we see the unemployment number decrease and the economic growth increase, that will be an uphill climb.  Therefore, if the media wants a second term for President Obama, it is to their advantage to convince us that negative economic news is unexpected and that we will see positive economic news in the very near future.

Meanwhile, I am hoping for an unexpected victory for the Republican presidential candidate in 2012.

Today's New York Daily News has a story about some of its staff who are smokers trying to get a ticket under the new New York City law that bans smoking in certain outdoor spaces.  The article is hilarious in terms of what these people had to do to get a ticket and should be read in its entirety.  However, I will attempt to summarize.

The article reports:

"The Daily News landed the city's first smoking ban ticket Friday - and it took all day to do it.

"The News sent one staffer to the beach at Coney Island and another to the High Line, spending a total of six hours doing everything they could to get a ticket. They got a first-hand look at the lax enforcement.

"Photographer Pearl Gabel, after flagrantly puffing in the presence of a Parks Department officer for a couple hours, finally scored about 6 p.m."

Maybe I just don't live in the real world, but somehow I think their are much more awful things people could be doing in a park than smoking. 

As I have stated before, I am a nonsmoker and cigarette smoke bothers me, but if I am in an open space and someone is smoking, I have the option of walking over to another part of that open space to get away from the smoke.  Wasting Park Police time on a smoking ban just seems totally ridiculous to me.  Next we will have the Park Police looking for people who are eating donuts--that can't be healthy and contributes to obesity, therefore it must be stopped.

This is another example of people having their freedom taken away piece by piece.

The United Nations is sponsoring the First World Summit of African Descendants to be held in August at La Ceiba, Honduras.  Yesterday, CNS News posted an article about this coming summit.

The summit seeks 'social justice' for African Descendants.  That's newspeak for 'we want money from people who are successful to be given to people who are not successful.' 

The article reports:

"The event is part of the United Nations-declared International Year of African Descendants.

""This International Year of African Descendants provides an opportunity to right historical wrongs: in health, education, poverty, land rights, jobs, and financial credit for economic and social progress," said Pan American Health Organization Director Mirta Roses in a news release. "This celebration is important for recognizing the strength and resilience of Afro-descendant communities throughout the Americas, who have thrived despite historical discrimination and repression."

"The U.N. says an estimated 150 million African descendants live in Mexico and Central and South America."

There are some serious problems with this entire concept.  I totally agree with the idea that African slaves were brought to America against their will and often were treated badly.  I also agree that many of their descendants were treated badly and denied some of the basic necessities of life.  I have a friend in her late 60's who is black who has major health problems because of the medical care that was not available to her in her younger years in rural Georgia.  I understand.  However, now she has access to some of the best medical care in the world due to government programs that provide for her and protect her from discrimination.  No one can undo the injustice done in the past, but her present medical care does reflect 'social justice.' 

The article reports:

"As CNSNews.com previously reported, the Durban conference was marked by strong disagreements over issues, including attempts to equate Zionism with apartheid and calls for the U.S. and other Western nations to pay reparations for slavery. The conference and a parallel NGO gathering eventually degenerated into what critics described as an anti-Israel "hate-fest," and the Bush administration withdrew its already-downgraded delegation in protest. The Israeli representatives also walked out."

As far as reparations for slavery goes, please see previous articles on this blog about the Pigford Settlement.  The American taxpayer is already paying reparations for slavery under the Obama administration, just under a different name.

Admittedly, the slaves were brought here against their will from Africa.  That was horribly wrong.  The Irish came here voluntarily because the British were trying to starve them off of their land.  I am sure they would have stayed in Ireland if they could have.  Both nationalities (and many others who came to America) were treated badly when they arrived.  The Irish had the fortune of being able to blend into society more quickly because they looked more like the British who had essentially settled America.  Blending in was more difficult for slaves even after they were free because of their skin color.  However, many descendants of slaves have done well in America.  The black American family was a strong unit until welfare programs destroyed it. 

The answer to 'social justice' for descendants of slaves is not to give them a bunch of other peoples' money--the answer is to give them the tools to make their own money.  Somehow I doubt the United Nations conference will point this out.

Yahoo News posted an Associated Press article today about the opening of the border crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip.  The Egyptians had closed the border four years ago. 

Israelis fear that this border will now be used to bring weapons and military equipment into Gaza to be used against Israel.  Up until now those materials were smuggled in illegally, but the fact that they had to be smuggled in made it more difficult to get them to Gaza and limited the amount of weapons and other materials that got through. 

The article at Yahoo.com focuses on the problems the closing of the border created for the people living in the area.  I have no doubt there were many people inconvenienced by the closed border, but I also have no doubt that the closed border is one of many reasons why the State of Israel still exists.  I do not think opening this border will lead to peace in the area, in fact I believe it is a prelude to another war on Israel by its neighbors.

The article points out:

"Israeli and American officials have expressed concerns that Hamas will exploit the opening to bring weapons and fighters into Gaza. In January 2008, masked militants blew open the Rafah border wall, allowing thousands of people to pour in and out of Egypt.

"Egyptian officials say they have security measures in place to keep weapons from crossing through Rafah.

"Hamas has long used tunnels to get arms into Gaza. Gaza militants now have military-grade rockets that have hit cities in southern Israel.

"Amos Gilad, a senior Israeli Defense Ministry official, told Channel 2 TV Friday that Israel's primary concern is that military training personnel could cross to instruct Hamas fighters."

As the Muslim Brotherhood strengthens its hold on Egypt, the previously peaceful relationship between Egypt and Israel will change.  I believe that at some point in the next six months, Israel can expect to be attacked by all of its Arab neighbors.  The first move in the game plan will be to go to the United Nations to see if a Palestinian State can be unilaterally declared.  If that does not work, an invasion will follow.  The Arab spring will be exposed as what it truly is--a plan to set up a Middle East caliphate run by the Muslim Brotherhood and to drive Israel into the sea.

I can't believe that we have already entered the presidential primary season, but we have.  The fact that the first primary in Iowa makes the issue of government subsidies to ethanol a more important issue than it might otherwise be.

Yesterday The Weekly Standard posted an artice on ethanol and the comments of some politicians either supporting government subsidies for it or supporting the end of government subsidies.  The article opens with an Al Gore statement that his support for ethanol was related to his having the support of the farmers in Iowa when he was planning his presidential run.  Newt Gingrich claims that he supports ethanol because it will help America become energy independent. 

The article reports:

"Gingrich declared his commitment to make America energy self sufficient, in part through ethanol. The applause line/press lead of his speech: "if my choice is Iran, or Iowa, I prefer the money in Iowa. If my choice is Saudi Arabia, or South Dakota, I prefer the money in South Dakota."" 

This is a nice soundbite, but is somewhat truth-challenged.  The article points out that in 2010 and in 2011 our biggest oil suppliers were Canada and Mexico--both NAFTA partners.  Our oil money is generally not going to Arab countries. 

The article further points out that one of the major reasons for the high cost of gasoline is the devaluation of the American dollar.  It has depreciated against both the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso. 

Tim Pawlenty, former governor of Minnesota, also running in the Iowa primary, has come out in support of a gradual end to federal ethanol subsidies.

It will be interesting to see how the voters in Iowa react to the positions of both of these candidates.  

The question of voter ID is coming up in a number of states right now.  Earlier this week, I ran an article at rightwinggranny.com about the number of states passing or considering voter ID laws.  John Hinderaker at Power Line reported today that Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton vetoed a voter ID bill yesterday that would have required voters to show identification when they voted. The law included a provision that provided for issuance of free voter IDs to any legitimate voters who, for whatever reason, have no driver's license or other form of identification.

The article at Power Line reports:

"Minnesotans, aware that voter fraud has likely played a key role in recent elections, overwhelmingly support the law: the Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll, which routinely tilts left, found 80 percent support."

In spite of public support for a voter ID requirement, the governor vetoed the bill. 

John HInderaker points out:

"Until now, Minnesota has had lax laws that facilitate voter fraud. Not only does the state have same-day registration, there is also an absurd system whereby a resident of a precinct can "vouch" for as many as 15 people who are not registered in the precinct and have no identification that would otherwise allow them to register. This means that the Democrats can station an operative at a polling place, bus in students from Wisconsin, illegal immigrants, etc., and allow them to vote illegally by having their operative vouch for the whole busload."

This is not a good situation, and unfortunately, the governor's veto will allow voter fraud to continue.

I am a numbers person, but when newscasters start telling me how many jobs were created and how many jobs were lost every month, my eyes glaze over.  Just give me the unemployment number, and I am happy.  Unfortunately, the number I want is not the number that tells the whole story.

On May 16th, the Wall Street Journal posted an article by Edward P. Lazear, chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-2009, a professor at Stanford University's Graduate School of Business and a Hoover Institution fellow.  In the article, Professor Lazear explains why the job market seems so dismal despite reports that hundreds of jobs are being created every month. 

The Professor points out:

"First, the increase in job growth that occurred over the past two years results from a decline in the number of layoffs, not from increased hiring. In February 2009, a month during which the labor market lost more than 700,000 jobs, employers hired four million workers. In March 2011, employers hired four million workers. The number of hires is the same today as it was when we were shedding jobs at record rates."

What he is saying here is that the number of people being hired is not increasing, it is remaining the same.  When I read this, I thought it was good news that there are fewer layoffs now than in February 2009, when we were in the heart of the recession.  However, the article points out that generally speaking layoffs occur early in a recession and are not necessarily an indication of anything.  The article further points out that at any point of the business cycle, even during a recession, workers are constantly being hired to replace workers who have left jobs or retired.  This does not represent an expansion or contraction of the workforce--it is simply a replacement of current workers.  I would like to add to that concept the idea that the baby boomers began turning 65 this year, and many of them have retired and will be retiring in the near future.

The article also points out that in a healthy American economy, American firms hire about 5.5 million workers per month.  We have not seen that number since early 2007.  The author states that one of the indicators of a healthy economy is a high levels of hiring, and high levels of separations. 

The article further states:

"No one would suggest that layoffs are good for workers, but what is good is a fluid labor market, where workers and firms constantly seek to produce better products and to find more efficient ways to produce them. High labor market churn is a characteristic of a strong economy. It generally means that workers are moving to better jobs in growing sectors that pay higher wages and away from declining sectors that pay lower wages."

The article concludes with a prescription for a robust American labor market: "low taxes on capital investment, avoidance of excessively burdensome regulation, and open markets here and abroad."  America is at a crossroads--we can stay on the road we are on and accept 9 percent unemployment as normal or we can follow the suggestions of Professor Lazear and go back to the 6 percent unemployment numbers we enjoyed during the George W. Bush administration.  All of this will be decided in the next electoin.

I have just returned home from Blogworld & New Media Expo 2011 in New York City.  At some time in what I hope will be the very near future, the impact of that visit will be obvious on this website.

While in New York City, my husband and I stayed at the Metro Apartments, 440 West 41st Street, New York, NY.  This was not the Ritz, but it was clean, the owners were remodeling the building to improve it, and the staff was very nice and very helpful.  The location was also great--it was right on the edge of the theatre district.  The hotel is located in the area of the city known as Hell's Kitchen.  It was also close to the bus station, which was fantastic because we took the bus from Rhode Island and only had to walk across the street.  The room had a lot of street noise, but I think that is fairly common in New York City.  One of the desk clerks explained to us the Hell's Kitchen used to be a less than wonderful neighborhood, but had changed dramatically in recent years because of "the mouse."  He was referring to the impact that opening the Disney Store and the Disney Theatre has had on Times Square.  Mickey Mouse has had a very positive impact on Times Square and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Because I was curious, I checked out the age demographics of bloggers.  According to Social Media Today, as of June 7, 2010, 20.2 percent of bloggers are less than 20 years old; 53.3 percent of bloggers are 21 through 35 years old; 19.4 percent are 36 through 50 years old; and 7.1 percent of bloggers are age 51 or older.  The people at Blogworld generally reflected those numbers.  As an older blogger who is technically challenged (to say the least), I appreciated the patience and willingness of the people at the various exhibits to take the time to explain things to me.  The people running the exhibits at the show were very helpful and very informative.  Due to scheduling conflicts and cost restraints, I didn't get to hear any of the speakers this year.  I hope to be back next year for exhibits and speakers.

Stay tuned for changes coming to this site!

The topic of discussion after the election in New York's 26^th District has been whether or not the Republicans running for office should support Paul Ryan's budget proposal regarding Medicare.  One long-time Republican campaign veteran in Massachusetts told me that there was no point in Scott Brown voting for the Ryan Budget--if Harry Reid thought it would pass, he would never bring it up for a vote.  I really hate that kind of thinking.  Either reforming Medicare is the right thing to do or it isn't.  If it is the right thing to do, but Paul Ryan's plan is not the right way, where is the alternative?  One thing that needs to made perfectly clear to every American voter--Medicare cannot continue to exist in its present form--it is going bankrupt.

The government's actuary board issued a summary report (Summary Report on Social Security and Medicare) which stated:

"Projected long-run program costs for both Medicare and Social Security are not sustainable under currently scheduled financing, and will require legislative corrections if disruptive consequences for beneficiaries and taxpayers are to be avoided."

According to Forbes Magazine, under Obama's heath care reform:

"...The 2010 Financial Statement of the United States Government, published by the Treasury Department last December, discloses repeatedly in several tables of data that the total of future cuts in payments to doctors and hospitals under Medicare as provided in current law due to Obamacare and President Obama's Medicare reimbursement policies is $15 trillion!"

Another way that President Obama's health care plan intends to cut the cost of Medicare is through the use of the Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB.  This would be an independent Board set up to determine if a particular treatment for a patient is cost effective.  It sounds like a good idea, but people are not 'cost effective'--people are individuals. 

Americans have had access to some of the best health care in the world up to this point.  We need to protect that health care--not allow it to go bankrupt or ration it.  We need political leaders who will tell us the truth--that Medicare cannot continue to exist in its present form--and then begin to discuss ways that it might be changed.  The current political gamesmanship is getting us nowhere.

Yesterday's Washington Times reported that Representative Tim Scott, who represents the First District of South Carolina, has introduced legislation to protect Boeing from the attacks of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), which is attempting to prevent Boeing from opening an assembly plant in South Carolina.  Because this plant would be opened in South Carolina, a right-to-work state, rather than Washington, where other Boeing assembly plants are located, the NLRB has accused Boeing of unfair labor practices.  It should be noted that the assembly plant to be opened in South Carolina creates new jobs--it does not move any jobs from Washington to South Carolina.  In essence the NLRB is preventing jobs from being created because those jobs are in a right-to-work state. 

The Job Protection Act would clarify that federal law does not give the NLRB the right to determine where a U. S. Company should do business. 

The article quotes Representative Scott as saying, "For the NLRB to punish a company for locating in a right-to-work state is an abuse of federal executive power.  This administration has clearly overstepped its bounds through the inappropriate actions of an unelected regulatory board."" 

The article reports:

"House Education and Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline, Minnesota Republican, has been trying to secure documents from the NLRB related to the Boeing case. So far he has received a short reply and no documents from the agency. "The NLRB is not immune from congressional oversight or public scrutiny," Mr. Kline said in a statement. The committee is requesting information on the Boeing case because "there are legitimate questions over public statements made by NLRB officials and the timing of its complaint." The NLRB needs to come clean on how and why it has taken action against Boeing."

The Obama administration's treatment of Boeing is an example of the federal government interfering with a company that would create jobs.  Government interference is one of the main reasons American unemployment rates remain high.  If we can shrink government and stop them from interfering in business, we will see the unemployment rate go down.

President Obama gained his political experience in Chicago--a town known for hardball politics (and a powerful political machine).  He learned his lessons well.

Michael Barone posted an article at the Washington Examiner on Tuesday about the rule of law and the Obama administration.  The two don't seem to be very well acquainted.

Mr. Barone begins by citing the waivers from Obamacare.  Thus far there have been 1,372 waivers given to businesses, local governments, unions and insurers, covering 3,095,593 individuals or families.  Of those 3,095,593 people impacted by those waivers, more than half are in plans run by labor unions.  Union members make up only 12 percent of the populations, yet they have received more than 50.3 percent of the waivers on Obamacare.  I thought the unions were strong supporters of Obamacare.  Have they changed their minds?  If they have changed their minds, will they help the rest of us overturn it?  Can the rest of us get waivers?  You get the point.

The Health of Human Services website says that the waiver process will be transparent, but it does not list the people who requested waivers that were turned down.  Hmmm.

Mr. Barone points out in his article that one of the basic principles of a democracy is the rule of law--which includes the principle that everyone is equal under the law.  That principle has been violated with Obamacare waivers--some of us are more equal than others.

The second principle of the rule of law is that you can't make up the rules as you go along.  This principle is currently being violated by the Obama Administration in two areas--the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) attack on Boeing aircraft and the move by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to levy a gift tax on certain 501(c)(4) organizations that have spent money to elect Republicans.

The NLRB has decided that Boeing does not have the right to assembly its 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina instead of Washington because South Carolina is a right-to-work state.  Regardless of how that case is eventually settled in court, the expenses Boeing will incur in defending its right to do business wherever it chooses will have a chilling effect on businesses in America.  As a result of this dust-up, we can expect more companies to look into moving their operations overseas--adding to America's unemployment problems.

The looming gift tax is a new idea--previously gift taxes have only been levied on money parents give to heirs or other family members in order to avoid estate taxes.  This change in the application of gift taxes may have a chilling effect of political donations to Republicans.

It is a shame that America has come to this.  However, the solution is relatively simple.  If you don't like what you see politicians in Washington doing, vote them out.  The American people have to take some responsibility for what is currently going on.  If we don't like it, we need to change it.  If gangster government and crony capitalism are ok with you, just keep voting for the people you have been voting for.  It's up to you to share what you know and vote according to what you think is good for the country.

Michelle Malkin posted an article at Townhall.com about the fact that nearly 4,000 stimulus recipients received $24 billion in Recovery Act funds -- while owing more than $750 million in unpaid corporate, payroll and other taxes. 

When confronted with this information, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board pointed out that federal law does not prevent tax delinquents from receiving government contracts or grants. 

The article further reports:

"Even if such a prohibition existed, you can't count on the IRS to perform due diligence on behalf of the American taxpayer, either. Last week, the Treasury Department inspector general found that the tax police have failed to prevent fraud in the stimulus law's energy tax credit program. Some $6 billion in stimulus energy credits for homeowners have been claimed -- but the inspector general's audit found that 30 percent of credit-claimers had no record of homeownership. "I am troubled by the IRS's continued failure to develop appropriate verification methods for distributing Recovery Act credits," the Treasury Inspector watchdog said."

The article also points out that the stimulus program actually cost jobs in some cases--many private sector jobs were crowded out by public jobs and programs.  Generally speaking, when the government gets bigger, the private sector gets smaller.  The stimulus program was further proof of that.  There is no way we can ever recover the money spent on the stimulus, but let's be a little more careful about throwing money around in the future.

Yesterday Yahoo.com posted a Christian Science Monitor article about the reception that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu received from the United States Congress yesterday.  The article credits at least some of the warm reception the Prime Minister received on the influence of the pro-Israel lobby, long one of the most effective on Capitol Hill.  I am willing to acknowledge that the pro-Israel lobby is effective, but I think the reception given to Prime Minister Netanyahu also has to do with Americans' sense of fair play.  I just don't think a lot of Americans like the idea of an American President telling another country what its borders should be.

Today's UK Telegraph had an interesting perspective on the speech:

"Right from the get go, with his "you got bin Laden" line, Netanyahu offered red meat to Congress as well as making enough noises about wanting to achieve peace and being ready to make "painful compromises" to persuade most Americans that he is not the roadblock in the Middle East.

"Of course, the speech won't be seen that way in Britain. One of the most striking differences between the UK and the US is in how Israel and the Palestinians are viewed. I dare say that if Netanyahu had told the House of Commons that Hamas was the "Palestinian al-Qaeda" there would have been a fair few boos."

It is interesting to me that the writer of the UK Telegraph piece does not believe that the British see Hamas as a terrorist organization. 

To me, the most important thing that the Prime Minister said was reported in the article at Yahoo.com:

"He called on Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to tear up his pact with Hamas, stand before his people, and say, "I will accept a Jewish state."

""Those six words will change history," Netanyahu said. "They'll make it clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end - that they're not building a Palestinian state to continue the conflict with Israel but to end it.""

I truly do not understand how Israel can make peace with any nation or group of people who want to destroy it.  I think that is the reason Congress supported what the Prime Minister said--even Congress has a sense of fair play.

Yesterday, the Charleston Post and Courier reported that the South Carolina House of Representatives voted to approve a bill that would require state and local law enforcement to check a person's immigration status during arrests and routine traffic stops if an officer suspects that person is in the country illegally.  It is expected that Gov. Nikki Haley will sign the bill.

South Carolina joins about thirty states that are considering comprehensive illegal immigration reform bills, many of which give law enforcement the right to check the status of people that they come in contact with in arrests and traffic stops. 

The article lists some of the major provisions of the bill:

--Determining what documents will be acceptable to prove immigration status or citizenship.

--Allowing the state Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation to issue new fines between $15,000 and $50,000 to businesses that repeatedly break the 2008 law.

--Whether to add a $5 fee on international wire transfers of up to $500 and a 1 percent fee on transfers of more than $500.

 The article reports:

"An often cited 2010 study by the Federation of American Immigration Reform estimates that illegal immigrants cost the state $391 million annually, primarily in social services."

We need controlled legal immigration (and more of it).  One of the reasons for the amount of illegal immigration that we have is that the government has so entangled the legal immigration process in red tape that it is nearly impossible (and expensive and time-consuming) to get through it.  What we need is a sensible and easy to understand immigration process and an end to illegal immigration.

Yesterday's Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the circular firing squad the Republicans have formed around Paul Ryan's Medicare plan.  The problem with reforming Medicare is not going to be the Democrats--it is going to be wobbly Republicans.  Newt Gingrich began the exodus; Scott Brown has followed him, forgetting who elected him.  The Scott Brown supporters in Massachusetts are reminding Massachusetts Republicans that Scott Brown is in Massachusetts and that he won't be reelected if he supports the Ryan plan.  And that sort of thinking is the reason that America will continue in financial decline.  Massachusetts was the beginning of the American Revolution.  The patriots in Massachusetts had the courage to stand up for what was right.  I am truly sorry Scott Brown has chosen to speak out against Paul Ryan's proposal.  He could have at least kept quiet.

Meanwhile, the Republicans lost the special election in New York State.  The pundits are saying that the Ryan plan was the reason for the loss.  Let's look at the initial results of the New York special election. 

Late last night, the Daily Caller reported:

"With 89 percent of precincts reporting, Hochel (D) led Corwin (R) by 48-to-42 percent, the AP reports."

There are a few things that need to be noted here.  There was a third-party candidate in this race with a questionable relationship with the Tea Party (he had run as a Democrat in previous campaigns) who took votes away from the Republican candidate.  The Democrat candidate did not get the majority of the votes; she just got enough to win.  During the 2010 Congressional election, one of the tactics the Democrats used in Massachusetts was to run third-party candidates to dilute the Republican vote.  I suspect that was done in this election.

The Democrats needed to win in New York.  The poured money into the state and ran misleading ads against the Paul Ryan plan.  I don't know if the "pushing granny over the cliff in her wheelchair" ad ran there, but it wouldn't surprise me.  The Republican candidate was not conversant enough with the details of the Ryan plan to successfully communicate what it was.  That is something that needs to be corrected.  All Republicans need a crash course in what Paul Ryan's budget is and what it isn't.  Were it not for the likes of Newt Gingrich and Scott Brown, there would be a chance of getting the Ryan budget passed.  Now I suspect we will see more wobbly Republicans and no improvement of the country's spending problem.

Today Haaretz.com reported that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has warned Arab countries against U. S. plots to sow division in the area in order to save Israel. 

The article reports:

""Their scheme is to save the Zionist regime, global arrogance and U.S. interests... the main enemies of nations are the U.S., its allies and the Zionist regime," Ahmadinejad was quoted by Press TV as saying about the U.S."

Is their any doubt about the intentions of the Arab nations toward Israel? 

Ahmadinejad further stated:

"Criticizing the U.S. government, he asked, "What is the difference between a country ruled by one or two [dictators] for thirty to forty years and a country dominated by two parties for many years?""

As Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated today (according to Power Line) in speaking about democracy:

"What will change all this (current conditions in Arab countries)? One word.

"Democracy. Real, genuine, democracy.

"Democracy, I don't just mean elections.

"I mean Freedom of Speech. Freedom of the Press. Freedom of Assembly.

"The Rule of Law. Rights for women, for gays, for minorities, for everyone.

"What the people of the Middle East need is what you have in America, and what we have in Israel.

"Democracy.

"It's time to recognize this basic truth:

"Israel is not what's wrong about the Middle East.

"Israel is what's right about the Middle East."

The contrast is obvious.  Democracies support freedom.  Tyrants support other tyrants.

Yesterday CNS News posted an article stating:

""The U.S. administration will fail, just as all others have in the past, in forcing Hamas to recognize [Israel]," a Hamas spokesman declared Sunday after President Obama once again pressed the terrorist group to relinquish violence and recognize Israel's right to exist."

Why in the world would anyone be stupid enough to attempt to make peace with someone who has sworn to wipe them off the planet?  Anyway, the article continues:

"Hamas' refusal to repudiate violence and recognize Israel underscores should make any P.A. government that includes Hamas ineligible for U.S. support and funding, according to congressional critics. So far the adminstration has adopted a "wait and see approach."

"A Hamas leader said Sunday the reconciliation deal with Fatah strengthens the Hamas' approach to the conflict - the approach of armed "resistance."

"Khalil Al-Hayya said the agreement had "boosted the resistance" and urged Fatah to "stand united behind the program of resistance since it is the only one capable of ending the occupation.""

""The "occupation," in Hamas' view, is the entire state of Israel, as established in 1948 - not merely the territories captured from Jordanian and Egyptian control in 1967. The Hamas covenant dates its struggle against the "Zionist invaders" to the late 1930s.

"Further underlining Israel's concerns about Hamas' ideology and agenda, Hamas lawmaker and Islamic cleric Yunis al-Astal in a recent interview predicted a "great massacre" in years to come."

If Hamas believes that the Palestinians are entitled to all the land Israel now occupies, agreeing on borders might be a problem.  Stay tuned.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported that the Supreme Court of the United States has ordered the State of California to release 33,000 prisoners. 

An article posted at Hot Air reports:

"The Supreme Court on Monday endorsed a court order requiring California to cut its prison population by tens of thousands of inmates to improve health care for those who remain behind bars.

"The court said in a 5-4 decision that the reduction is "required by the Constitution" to correct longstanding violations of inmates' rights. The order mandates a prison population of no more than 110,000 inmates, still far above the system's designed capacity.

"There are more than 142,000 inmates in the state's 33 adult prisons, meaning roughly 32,000 inmates will need to be transferred to other jurisdictions or released."

The artaicle at Breitbart.com reports:

"Gov. Jerry Brown sought and signed a bill this year that would reduce the prison population by about 40,000 inmates by transferring jurisdiction for many low-level offenders to counties. The law is stalled until the lawmakers or voters authorize money to pay for the transfer. Much of the money is intended to help counties handle the responsibility of housing convicts.

""As we work to carry out the Court's ruling, I will take all steps necessary to protect public safety," he said in a prepared statement.

"Several organizations, from the state prison guards union to the California State Association of Counties, backed Brown's realignment plan--and the elusive funding--as the most practical way to comply with the court's mandate.

""If we don't do it smart, we could have all those people come back for additional crimes," said Chuck Alexander, executive vice president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association."

This is not a good situation.  I am sorry that the prisons in California are overcrowded, but releasing criminals into the general population does not seem to be the correct answer to the problem.

Today's Washington Examiner is quoting Representative Peter King of New York as saying, "(Former New York City Mayor Giuliani) is very close to saying he's going to run" for president in 2012. 

The article points out that although Giuliani is a viable candidate, the issue that brought him to national attention, his actions during the 911 attacks, is almost 10 years old.  The issues have changed.  I'm not so sure.  As Mayor, Giuliani curbed crime, and did a lot to clean up the financial problems of New York City.  He is also recognized as strong on keeping Americans safe from terrorism.  I am not sure how important the terrorism issue is to many Americans, but I suspect Americans generally want to see a leader who will combat terrorism and prosecute terrorists.

I am a social and fiscal conservative, but there are aspects of a Giuliani campaign for president that I could easily support.

One of the things that the Republicans need to keep in mind for the 2012 presidential election is that President Obama is from Chicago and his campaign will be headquartered in Chicago.  I don't mean to criticize Chicago--it is a totally fascinating city--but it is known for raising politics to the level of a blood sport.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported on some of the recent activities of people loosely and closely involved in President Obama's re-election campaign.  The current goal of the Obama campaign is to stir up division within the Republican party and to damage any candidate who looks like he might be a threat to President Obama's re-election.  I should mention at this point that the Republicans seem to have enough trouble choosing a viable candidate--they don't need any extra hurdles.  In the past, the Republicans simply gave the nomination to the oldest good guy running.  I think the Tea Party plans on changing that.

The article at Breitbart reports:

"A pro-Obama group called Priorities USA is airing a TV ad in South Carolina that jabs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, two of the best-known Republican contenders. The ad coincided with Romney's visit to the state Saturday, his first since forming a presidential exploratory committee.

"Obama keeps offering praise, which he knows can damage a candidate in a Republican primary, to Romney on health care issues and to Jon Huntsman for his service as the Obama administration's ambassador to China.

"Huntsman, a former Utah governor, also is considering running."

The article further reports:

"The Democratic National Committee maintains a barrage of "rapid response" criticisms of Romney, Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and other GOP contenders.

""Tim Pawlenty: Uninspiring at Best," said one DNC statement, based on portions of a Time magazine article.

"Some Democrats question the wisdom of undercutting Pawlenty, Gingrich or any other Republican besides Romney, who many see as potentially the strongest contender in a shaky GOP field.

"Bill Burton, a former Obama aide who heads the Priorities USA group, said there's no point in trying to guess who the Republicans will nominate, and no point in waiting to hit the candidates' weaknesses."

It's time for Republicans to begin to talk about President Obama's handing of the economy, the way he has treated our allies, and the problems with Obamacare.  Wake up, Republicans, the campaign has already begun.

Today CNS News reported that:

"This year's election for the U.N. Human Rights Council has, once again, produced a body that has fewer "free" countries - 21 of a total of 47 - and has more than one-third of the seats held by members of the Islamic bloc."

This really does not seem like an ideal situation.  Islamic nations are not known for their support of what western countries would consider human rights. 

The article lists next year's Human Rights Council:

"The HRC for the next year comprises:

"Free" countries (21):

"Austria, Benin, Belgium, Botswana, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, United States and Uruguay.

""Not free" (12):

"Angola, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya (currently suspended), Mauritania, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia.

""Partly free" (14):

"Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Moldova, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Uganda, Thailand.

"The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) members are:  Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Uganda."

This is not a group of countries committed to protecting human rights as they are commonly understood.  The OIC spends most of its time crafting resolutions that condemn Israel and make criticism of Islam illegal.  This is not a council that will protect or promote anyone's human rights.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article about some states moving toward requiring voters to show identification in order to vote.

Thursday, Wisconsin lawmakers sent a bill requiring photographic identification for voting to Governor Scott Walker's desk to be signed.  Kansas passed an even stricter law a few weeks ago. 

According to the article:

"...Kansas's Secure and Fair Elections Act combined three elements: (1) a requirement that voters present photo IDs when they vote in person; (2) a requirement that absentee voters present a full driver's license number and have their signatures verified; and (3) a proof of citizenship requirement for all newly registered voters. Although a few states, including Georgia, Indiana and Arizona, have enacted one or two of these reforms, Kansas is the only state to enact all three."

Texas sent a photo-ID bill to Governor Perry last Monday.  Next year Missouri voters will get to vote on a photo-ID requirement.

I posted an article about voter fraud in Texas in March (rightwinggranny.com).  Part of that article stated:

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

The article at the Wall Street Journal also points out:

"Carrying a photo ID has become a part of American life. You can't cash a check, board a plane, or even buy full-strength Sudafed over the counter without one. That's why it's not unreasonable to require one in order to protect our most important privilege of citizenship. But just in case any person lacks a photo ID, Kansas's law provides a free state ID to anyone who needs one. Other states have included similar provisions in their photo-ID laws."

Voter identification is needed to keep our elections fair and honest.  In April I reported on documented cases of voter fraud in the last Massachusetts election (rightwinggranny.com).  I hope all states will begin to ask voters to identify themselves when they vote. 

Today's Wall Street Journal reported that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has withdrawn from the 2012 Presidential race.  He stated that he withdrew because he felt that running would not be in the best interest of his family.

Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have also withdrawn from the race this week.  Governor Daniels was seen as a serious candidate--he had a solid record as a cost cutter as governor of Indiana.

For a presidential campaign that seems to be starting early, this is an odd race.  I believe that what is happening is that the gap between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party is becoming a problem for the Republican establishment.  In the past, the gentlemenly Republicans simply gave the Presidential nomination to the oldest person whose turn it was.  There were occasional contests (for example, Reagan vs. Ford in 1976), but generally speaking, the oldest good guy got the nomination.  I believe the Tea Party changes that scenario.  The Tea Party wants the old guard Republicans to step aside and let someone who will actually cut spending and act like what Republicans are supposed to act like be nominated.  I don't believe the struggle within the Republican Party will lose the election--I believe it will make the party stronger.

There really is not a first-tier Republican candidate who represents the Tea Party.  Right now the remaining first-tier candidates is Mitt Romney, who will still be explaining Romneycare in the 2016 election.  There are, however, some tea-party acceptable candidates below the first tier--Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Tim Pawlenty.  It remains to be seen whether Rick Perry of Texas or Sarah Palin will enter the race.

Whatever happens next, it's going to be an interesting year and a half.

Remember the AARP ads during the debate about Obamacare?  Remember the AARP telling seniors how good the program was going to be for them?  Remember Andy Griffiith telling all of us how good Obamacare was for senior citizens?

Well, Obamacare is so good that the AARP is going to be exempt from it (after all that advertising).  Yesterday's Daily Caller reported that:

"...the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt "Medigap" policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans."

If the program is so good, why are they asking for (and receiving) an exemption? 

On March 31, I reported (rightwinggranny.com) that:

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

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

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

It's time to scrap Obamacare, have an honest debate on healthcare (and health insurance) in America, and come up with a program that is fair to everyone.  I really hate the way the Obama administration is using the government to reward the people it sees as helping their agenda.  I realize that people in Washington play politics, but this is beyond the pale.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article called, "I used to be drunk, but now I am bipolar."  The title of the article is a quote from a man who was applying for Social Security disability insurance.  Thursday's Wall Street Journal featured an article about a West Virginia Social Security administration judge who granted benefits to 100 % of the people who appeared before him. 

In the 1950's Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) was created to provide benefits to workers who were physically unable to work.  That program was expanded in the Nixon administraiton to give benefits to the poor.  Over the years the program expanded to cover mental illnesses.  In 1984 President Reagan expanded the laws regarding mental illness.  To give you an idea of how the program has grown, in 1984 about 64,000 were given SSDI benefits due to mental illnesses.  In 1986 it was over 124,000.  In 2009 it was over 216,000.  The result is that more than 2.4 million people recieve benefits for "mental disorders other than retardation." 

Because Social Security Disability cases are brought to judges in the various districts, the decisions of those judges vary.  There is no national standard.  We are in danger of having the SSDI become nothing more than an extended unemployment compensation program. 

It's time to change the SSDI program to be more efficient, more consistent, and more able to meet the needs of the American people.  Just standardizing the requirements to collect SSDI would be a step in the right direction.  A little Congressional oversight wouldn't hurt either.

Today's New York Post posted an article about the planned National September 11th Memorial that is expected to open at Ground Zero in New York on September 11 of this year.  There are no restrooms included in the plans for the eight-acre site of the memorial.  The site includes two large reflecting pools and cascading waterfalls, which are designed to give visitors a feeling of serenity.  Meanwhile, the nearest bathroom (as things currently stand) is inside the discount department story Century21, across the wide 16-acre plaza on Cortlandt Street.

Hopefully, someone will figure out a way to include bathrooms in the design before the memorial opens, but that does not seem to be a given. 

The article reports:

""Visitors will be provided with information to help plan their visit, including being advised that bathrooms will not be accessible on the site," Bloomberg spokesman Andrew Brent said.

The museum -- which will reach seven stories underneath the memorial plaza -- will be equipped with toilets, according to City Hall. But it isn't scheduled to open until fall 2012."

Meanwhile, have a nice hike to Century21.  My husband pointed out to me that the plans for this memorial had to pass a lot of criteria to be approved--Americans with Disabilities Act, Zoning Laws, Building Codes, etc.  How is it that no one in the chain of approvals noticed the lack of bathrooms?  Is someone not doing their job? 

There is a website called defensibleborders.org that has a post by Maj.-Gen (res.) Yaakov Amidror describing defensible borders for Israel--what they are and why they are what they are.  The post is rather long, and the above link will get you there.  I will try to summarize, but the original is better and also has maps.

The article points out:

"Israel's struggle for "defensible borders" is unique in international diplomacy. It emanates from both the special legal and strategic circumstances that Israel faced in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, when the Israel Defense Forces captured the West Bank and other territories in a war of self-defense. The previous armistice line of 1949 that separated the Israeli and Jordanian armies was only a military boundary and not a permanent political border, according to the armistice agreement itself. The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank occurred in conjunction with its illegal invasion of the State of Israel in 1948. In fact, Jordanian sovereignty in the West Bank was not recognized by a single Arab state. This provided the background for UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 which concluded that Israel would need "secure and recognized boundaries" that would necessarily be different from the 1967 lines. The previous status quo was not to be restored. In diplomatic shorthand, President George W. Bush stated on April 14, 2004, that Israel had a right to "defensible borders," in order to convey the same point."

The bold type in the above quote from the article is mine--it is not in the original article.

The article further points out:

"According to the principles of defense adopted by armies all over the world, there are three basic criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a defensive plan:

1. A battle space with the necessary depth, so that suitable defensive forces can be deployed in stages.

2. A reserve force of a sufficient level of strength to counterattack in order to restore the situation to what it was prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

3. A suitable distance from the strategic interior, predicated on the assumption that its conquest or serious damage could undermine the army's ability to hold firm.

All of these principles presuppose one cardinal assumption about the conduct of wars:

Since no defensive system will remain the same as it was at the beginning of an attack - and must break apart - there is a necessity for sufficient depth for the reserve forces to mass and there is a need for adequate space before enemy forces reach the strategic interior of a state.

Since the 1967 lines do not meet a single one of these criteria for establishing an adequate defensive plan, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that these cannot be said to constitute defensible or secure borders. The 1967 lines may have certain other advantages from a non-military perspective; some might even think, as a result, that they are good lines. But from a professional military standpoint, relying on the 1967 lines to defend the State of Israel entails an enormous risk, because an army that is deployed along them will not be able to guarantee Israel's defense, should there be a war in the future."

This should be rather obvious to anyone paying attention, but for whatever reason, many countries of the world are choosing to look the other way rather than to apply these principles to Israel.

The world is now at a fork in the road.  Do we ignore the threat to Israel as we ignored Kristallnacht in November 1938, and push forward a bogus peace agreement that guarantees a second Holocaust?  In September, the United Nations will take a vote to answer that question.  Which side will the United States be on?

Yesterday Jake Tapper at ABC News posted a story about how President Obama is avoiding being held accountable by the War Powers Act now that sixty days have passed since the United States got involved in the war in Libya. 

The article reports:

"President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so "limited" he does not need to seek congressional approval.

""Since April 4," the president wrote, "U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition's efforts.""

Wow.  That is one interesting set of verbal gobbledegook.  I'll bet some previous presidents would have loved to get away with language like that. 

The article further states:

"The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress "supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government...Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort."

"Earlier this month, Kerry - who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - described his resolution as "in limbo.""

I don't mean to be difficult, but do you think for a moment that if this were a Republican president Congress would be so docile?

CNS News posted a story today about the President's speech calling for a return to the 1967 borders of Israel.  The article points out:

"When then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005 - uprooting 9,000 Israelis living there in the process - he did so largely on the basis of assurances contained in a letter sent by President George W. Bush the previous year.

"In the letter, Bush referred to the future boundaries of Israel arising from "final status" negotiations leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

""In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949," Bush wrote, adding that "all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion."

""It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities," he continued.

"The crucial Bush letter was endorsed by large majorities of both Houses of Congress in June 2004."

Obviously President Obama was either unaware of that letter or chose to ignore it. 

The article at CNS News quotes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's reply:

"In his response to Obama's speech, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu - who is due to meet with Obama at the White House on Friday - referred to Bush's 2004 assurances.

""Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace.  Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state," his office said in a statement.

""That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress," it said.

""Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.""

The speech made by President Obama yesterday ignored the 2004 letter and Congressional action.  If the suggestions for peace made by President Obama were followed, Israel would not exist within a year.

The Hill reported yesterday that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the Democrats will not present a 2012 budget until deficit talks led by Vice President Biden have concluded.

Power Line cited some of the history of the Democrats and budgets:

This is why Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, ignored the law that requires his committee to produce a budget by April 15. He has now announced that a scheduled markup of a budget bill has been deferred indefinitely. Today, ranking member Jeff Sessions said:

"I appreciate that Senator Conrad has recognized the serious concerns that I, my Republican colleagues, and millions of Americans have over the decision of the Democrat-led Senate to not pass a budget in the last 750 days, to not present a budget at all this year, and to not even allow the budget process to go forward. However, today's announcement does not ease my concern nor, I would imagine, the concern now felt by people throughout this country. It seems Senate Democrats are desperately trying to avoid having to present a budget to the American people. They know that the big spenders in their caucus prevent them from bringing forward a credible plan that both their party and the country can support.

"... Today's announcement is just another excuse for delay--delay with no end in sight.

"Nothing can change the fact that as long as Democrats retain the majority in the Senate--the majority they asked the American people to confer upon them--it is their responsibility, as required by statute, to publicly present their budget to the American people. ... Once produced, the budget must be available for amendment, debate, and floor action as provided by law. ...

"Sooner or later every Senator will have to stand and be counted."

I think it is becoming very obvious that the Democrats do not want to stand and be counted--they would rather let the Republicans suggest solutions so that the Democrats can attack them.

This is a link to a YouTube video of an ad put together by the  Agenda Project.  A clearer copy of the video can be found at Power Line.

The video is meant to represent Paul Ryan pushing granny off of a cliff.  Well, Paul Ryan is not the person pushing granny off the cliff.  In a related post at Power Line, John Hinderaker points out that Medicare as it curently stands must either be reformed or terminated.

The report recently released by the Medicare Trustees tells us:

"...that Obamacare, because it calls for across-the-board cuts in Medicare funding but does not put in place the market mechanisms for encouraging greater productivity in health care, spells disaster for Medicare providers, and therefore for Medicare recipients...."

On September 9, 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported:

"Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years."

Paul Ryan's plan for Medicare reforms it, brings competition into it, and streamlines it.  Also, Paul Ryan's plan does not impact anyone over the age of 55.  Paul Ryan is not the one pushing granny over the cliff.  Hopefully the people who see this ad are smart enough to realize that.

Reuters reported today that:

"Shareholders of the world's largest fast-food chain resoundingly rejected a proposal that would have required it to issue a report outlining its role in the childhood obesity epidemic, saying customers were free to make their own dietary choices."

I may be going against the tide here, but I don't hold McDonald's to be responsible for childhood obesity.  There is no one pointing a gun at parents' heads and telling them to drive to McDonald's for dinner.  Ronald McDonald is a cute mascot, but he is not responsible for obesity in America.

If you are looking for a cause of obesity in America, I have a few suggestions:

• schools that have eliminated recess
• schools that have banned dodge ball
• schools that have banned tag
• video games
• working mothers that simply don't have the time to shop for and prepare nutritious meals or don't have the knowledge of what makes a balanced diet
• the food pyramid that we were sold on for so many years that is actually the eating pattern used to fatten cattle
• school systems that no longer require physical education classes in high school

If anyone has any other suggestions, I would love to hear them.

Today Investors.com posted an article about the latest skirmish in the battle for Boeing to be free to open an assembly plant in South Carolina.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), now stacked with President Obama's pro-union appointees, is attempting to block Boeing from opening a new assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state, as opposed to Washington, where the other Boeing assembly lines are located. 

Investors.com reports:

"One week after Republican senators introduced a bill to counter the National Labor Relations Board's complaint vs. Boeing (BA), not a single Democrat, not even the ones who represent states with right-to-work laws, have signed on as co-sponsors. According to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., they're not going to get any either, and that probably dooms the bill.

""Whether we can get any Democratic support is very doubtful. They are very afraid of doing anything that antagonizes unions, even if behind the scenes they agree with us," DeMint told IBD. "So I don't really know that we can pass it."

"DeMint said the GOP will continue to push it, but conceded it needs bipartisan support to break the Senate's 60-vote filibuster threshold. The Democrats "saw what happened to Blanche Lincoln," he said, referring to the pro-business Senate Democrat from Arkansas who was targeted by Big Labor during her 2010 re-election bid. She survived a brutal primary, but was too damaged to win the general election, though she probably would have been a longshot in any case."

This is truly sad.  We have so politicized our government that many elected officials are incapable of making a decision based on fair play. 

The article further reports:

"Boeing has signaled it will challenge the complaint. An NLRB hearing on it is set for mid-June. Should the NLRB uphold the complaint, Boeing can appeal it to federal court. DeMint said he believes that the NLRB does not think it can win an appeal but hopes to put enough of a drain on Boeing to send a message to other companies thinking of expanding to right-to-work states."

Until someone in the Democrat party develops a backbone, the thuggery will continue.

Yesterday's Daily Caller posted a story about Elena Kagan's involvement as a member of the Obama administration in the crafting of the legal defense of Obamacare.  Information obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act shows an email trail which indicates that the administation's plan was to have the Office of Solicitor General heavily involved in the defense of Obamacare.  This plan was initially carried out.  However, once Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, the effort was made to distance her from Obamacare and efforts were made to keep her previous actions hidden. 

The documents uncovered indicate that Ms. Kagan's claims that she had not been involved with the Obamacare legislation may not have been entirely true.

We know from experience that there will be no obvious consequences for misleading the Senators on the Judiciary Committee.  However, I don't feel as if we are asking too much to expect Ms. Kagan to recuse herself from any lawsuits involving Obamacare.

I don't even know the words to express how furious I am over this proclamation.  In April I posted an article about the myth of the 1967 borders (rightwinggranny.com).

In that article, I explained:

"... 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."

This is a map of the land given to Israel after half of it was given to Transjordan to establish a state for the Hashemites (who had just been driven out of Mecca and Medina by the Wahabi Muslims).  The Hashemites had been custodians of Mecca and Medina for centuries:

All of the land that is white or dark orange in the above map had originally been given to Israel in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and agreed to by the Arabs involved.  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 signed after all of Israel's neighbors invaded her after she became a nation.

I have a question.  How come Israel has to give back her land that she reclaimed in 1967 and the Arabs are supposed to be given the land they stole from Israel in 1949?

President Obama is on the wrong side of history on this and the wrong side of morality.  Giving the Arabs more land is not going to stop the violence in the Middle East--it is going to increase it.

Asking whether or not to fund the Peace Corps might be considered blasphemy in some circles, but there are a few aspects of the Peace Corps that haven't gotten a lot of attention.  Yesterday Big Government posted an article about Republican efforts to slash government funding for the Peace Corps.  How could they?  Unfortunately, when you look at the history of the organization--easily.

The article reports on the treatment of women in the Peace Corps--being sent into dangerous areas without sufficient protection and then, in the instances (and there were more than a few) where they were raped, being denied adequate medical care or being told that the rape was their fault.  Is this any way to run any organization?

The article reports:

"Of course, he (Senator Harry Reid) had nothing to say in response to charges that perhaps the Peace Corps isn't so peaceful. At least not for the women who were raped - and then blamed for being raped - during their stints in the corps. No ado was made about the House hearing on Wednesday investigating the same either, nor the legislation proposed by Congressman Poe (R-TX) that would require some Peace Corps oversight. In fact, the New York Times reported that Democrats wished to, as always, sweep such things under the rug in fear that their precious funding might be lost:"

One story the article relates:

"Deborah Gardner was murdered by fellow Peace Corps worker Dennis Priven, who turned himself in. After stabbing her - 22 times - to death. The Peace Corps reaction? Try to cover it up:

""Even after everyone knew it was Dennis, already that effort by the Peace Corps to put the blame somewhere else. And to make things go away," says Weiss. "That impulse has seized the Peace Corps within moments of Deb's death."

"As revolting as that is, they went one further. The Peace Corps hired, and paid for, the best defense attorney available in Tonga. Priven was found not guilty and the Peace Corps quietly shuffled him back to the United States. Where he lived freely, for decades. Working for the government. No, really:

"Weiss says Priven has led a small, anonymous life since then. He's divorced, and he recently retired after working for decades for the U.S. government.

""Twelve years after Deb's death, he was working for Social Security," says Weiss. "And ultimately was their top computer guy in the Brooklyn office.""

This is not an organization that deserves one penny of taxpayer money.

Sometimes living in Massachusetts is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.  You know what is about to happen, but you are having a hard time believing it.

Fox News is reporting today the the Massachusetts legislature is working to change the divorce laws in the state--the goal is to prevent domestic violence and shield children while the divorce is underway.  So what is the law being proposed?   The proposed bill would prevent divorcing parents from "conducting a dating or sexual relationship within the home" until the divorce is final.  This is an amazing invasion of privacy--even for Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is a one-party state.  It is run by Democrats.  These are the same Democrats that regularly complain that Republicans want to control what goes on in people's bedrooms.  I have never seen a piece of Republican legislation that invaded people's homes to this extent.  I am simply amazed that, as the state is dealing with severe budget problems and political leaders being charged with serious crimes, that the legislature chooses to focus on the dating habits of people obtaining divorces.  It simply boggles the mind.

On February 11, 2011, the New York Times reported that according to the Obama administration, four states had been given waivers for Obamacare-- Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee.  On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Nevada had been given a partial waiver to Obamacare.

I have a question.  If the Congressmen from these states voted to pass Obamacare, why are their states now seeking (and getting) waivers from the healthcare program? 

The article in the Las Vegas Sun reports:

"The change is less the feds giving underperforming insurance agencies a free pass than buying time for providers to shape up, or policyholders to ship out with reasonable warning time: Nevada has no law that says if you lose insurance because your insurer shuts down, another company has to pick you up. To prevent that, Health and Human Services determined it had to "provide the opportunity for plans with low 'medical loss ratios' to adjust their business models to reach 80 percent" with the reduced, 75 percent mandate for the rest of 2011 -- that being the average medical loss ratio that the state's top 10 insurers currently post.

"For Republicans, the waiver is proof of what they've been arguing all along -- that Obama's health care law was never going to work and has to go.

""It is becoming increasingly clear how flawed this law really is," Nevada Sen. Dean Heller said in a statement Monday. "Not only did it cut a half trillion dollars from Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada's seniors, now the law would have driven health insurers out of our state if a reprieve had not been granted.

""This is why 'Obamacare' will not work for Nevada," Heller said."

Obamacare was not designed to help Americans become insured at more reasonable rates--it was designed to create government-run health insurance.  Unless it is totally repealed before it has a chance to be fully instituted, we will lose the health insurance infrastructure that we currently have, and the quality and availability of heathcare in America will drop drastically.  Right now waivers are being given to those organizations that helped put Obamacare in place as a reward for their support, but if Obamacare was really that good, would its supporters be given waivers?

Because of the Bakken shale oil, the three states with the lowest unemployment rates are Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota.  The rates in those states range between 3.2 and 3.4 percent.  The oil is providing energy and jobs.  You would think that the Obama administration (and the New York Times) would be celebrating the success of those states.  Well, think again.

Yesterday's New York Times contained the following correction:

"An article on May 7 about the Obama administration's appointment of a panel of experts to find ways to make hydraulic fracturing safer misstated the prevalence of cases in which fluids from the gas drilling process have been proven to have contaminated drinking water. There are few documented cases, not numerous ones, although federal and state investigations into reports of such incidents are continuing."

Even the correction is misleading.  John Hinderaker at Power Line posted the part of the original New York Times' story that the correction applied to:

"Hydraulic fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of fluids into underground shale formations to break open natural gas pockets. The technique, which has been in limited use for decades, is expected to significantly increase recovery of domestic gas supplies and keep prices moderate for years.

"But the process also pours millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into the ground and into wastewater treatment systems, which in some cases cannot remove all the potential toxins. There are also numerous documented cases in which fracking fluids leaked into aquifers and contaminated drinking water."

The New York Times then attacked Republicans on the issue:

"Within hours, House Republicans issued a press release denouncing the study as wasteful, duplicative, and another example of red tape run amok. They said that fracking has been used safely for more than 60 years and that the Environmental Protection Agency already has sufficient authority to regulate it."

The misinformation led to an attack on Republicans by the New York Times.  The correction did not correct that attack in any way.  The New York Times had successfuly attacked the Republicans and cast a shadow on the development of a resource that could help make America more energy independent.  Mission accomplished. 

John Hinderaker concludes:

"So the Times reported the story so as to make Republicans look stupid or venal. In fact, the House Republicans were right: hydraulic fracking has a long, safe history. We need to get going on developing our vast natural gas resources, not appoint another panel to stall development in the name of a barely-existent environmental problem. But only the handful of readers who saw the correction would have any idea how misleading the Times' original article was."

I wonder how many people who read the correction understood how the initial article was used as an attack piece on Republicans and an attack on the efforts of Americans to become energy independent.

Some presidents have used the promise of access to the president as a weapon to control what the press said about them.  This is not true of all presidents, but of some recent ones.  The latest example of this in the Obama administration (where there have been a number of instances of this practice) occured during the fund-raising visit of President Obama to Boston today.

Today's Boston Herald reports:

"The White House Press Office has refused to give the Boston Herald full access to President Obama's Boston fund-raiser today, in e-mails objecting to the newspaper's front page placement of a Mitt Romney op-ed, saying pool reporters are chosen based on whether they cover the news "fairly."

""I tend to consider the degree to which papers have demonstrated to covering the White House regularly and fairly in determining local pool reporters," White House spokesman Matt Lehrich wrote in response to a Herald request for full access to the presidential visit."

I suspect that Mr. Lehrich's definition of fairness means favorable to President Obama.  The op-ed piece Mitt Romney wrote was about jobs--the lack of them.  Evidently, that is not a White House approved topic, particularly for the front page. 

The article further reports:

"In April 2010, Bloomberg's Ed Chen, president of the White House Correspondent's Association, met with then-Press Secretary Robert Gibbs to hash out complaints about limitations on the press, saying, "In my 10-plus years at the White House, rarely have I sensed such a level of anger ... over White House practices and attitudes toward the press."

"Last month, a San Francisco Chronicle editor reported the White House threatened to bar Hearst reporters from pool duty after a Chronicle reporter shot video of protestors mocking Obama at a fund-raiser.

"Glenn Reynolds, a University of Tennessee law professor who has followed White House-press relations at right-leaning Instapundit.com, said a pattern appears to be developing."

It's all about control.  As we enter the election season, be aware that what you read in the paper may be the result of that paper's wanting to have access to the President.  The mainstream media has been under attack in recent years for its lack of fairness.  The actions of the Obama administration will not result in a more balanced media.  Keep that in mind as you read the election reporting.

The Daily Caller reported today that the Obama administration has approved more than 1300 waivers from the new health care law's requirements.  I am wondering why, if the legislation is so good, so many waivers are being granted.  The article reported that less than 100 requests for waivers have been turned down.  Do you also notice that many of the strong supporters of the bill are the ones getting waivers?

In April, 204 waivers were approved.  Thirty-eight waivers, about 20 percent of them, were for businesses in Nancy Pelosi's Congressional District.  Wow. 

The article states that all waivers will be eliminated by 2014.  Notice that will be after the 2012 presidential election.

The bottom line here is very simple--we need to repeal Obamacare and start over with a system that includes tort reform, competition, and gives the states the ability to suit healthcare programs to their needs.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story about how some union whistleblowers who revealed that some union bosses were stealing from the union were treated. 

This is their story:

"Unionized phone company employees say they were beaten or threatened after they accused their labor bosses of looting their coffers through various scams.

"One member of Communications Workers of America Local 1101 said that after he reported a time-sheet padding scheme, a thug beat him so badly his spine was injured.

Another says he found a dead rat in his locker, while a third said a union officer warned "that suspected informants should be brought off company property and "taken care of." ...

DiStefano told the Daily News he was "attacked by a union thug" as he started the "morning shift at a Verizon garage in the Bronx in April 2009. "He pounded me with his fists, he spit on me, he choked me and threw me down to the floor," he said.

"DiStefano said he suffered two herniated discs and had knee problems that required surgery. ...

"Taravella said a dead rat was put in his locker with "a note tied to his tail" that said "Rest in Peace, Sebbie.""

Mr. Hinderaker points out that if the unions manage to push through Card Check, which will end the secret ballot in deciding to unionize, those who vote against unionization can expect to be treated the same way as the whistleblowers.

It seems as if our government enjoys being in crisis mode.  We always have to do something (usually involving a great deal of spending) in order to ward off the next crisis.  The current crisis is that we are reaching the debt ceiling and will not be able to borrow any more money. Good.  I hate to be difficult, but good.

Yesterday the Heritage Foundation posted an article entitled, "Myth-Busting the Debt Limit."  Sounds like a great idea.

The first thing pointed out in the article:

  "...But Heritage Foundation Vice President of Domestic and Economic Policy David S. Addington notes that those dire predictions just aren't true. In discussing J.D. Foster's paper "Congress Has Time and Options on Debt Limit," Addington writes:

"As Dr. Foster's paper demonstrated, there will not be a default on the Federal debt when the Treasury reaches the statutory limit on its borrowing of $14.294 trillion.  The Treasury just will not be able to borrow any more money.  The Treasury would still pay debts that come due, putting off temporarily payment of less important obligations as necessary to pay the maturing debt.

"President Obama's prophecies about the debt limit obscure an underlying truth: The U.S. government must find a way to get control of spending. Simply raising the debt limit and allowing the United States to borrow more money, unchecked, will not make that happen. To that end, in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, investor Stanley Druckenmiller warns that defaulting on the debt is not the real problem Wall Street should be worried about:

"In the future, he says, "People aren't going to wonder whether 20 years ago we delayed an interest payment for six days. They're going to wonder whether we got our house in order.""

Reaching our debt ceiling is not a good thing, but it means that we need to control spending--not that we need more debt.  Can you imaging running a household budget this way?

It's time for the Obama administration to get spending under control--not ask to borrow more.

Yesterday, Fox News reported that today a delegation from Iran will be traveling to the U.S. to participate in the Futurallia International Business Development Forum.

The article reports:

"Mohammad-Reza Sabzalipour, director of the Iranian World Trade Center, who announced this news to a group of reporters, said: "A sixteen-person delegation comprised of private sector Iranians has been invited by the U.S. to attend this three-day conference in Kansas City. Eight hundred trade delegations from thirty countries are expected to participate. This Forum can set the stage and provide the necessary groundwork for the development of international trade and business relations for Iran's private sector.""

The first thing to keep in mind here is that the private sector of Iran is heavily infiltrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the elite military troops of Iran. 

The U. S. currently has trade sanctions on Iran, but in spite of that the Obama administration has allowed the State Department to issue visas to this group and to host the delegation in the United States. 

The article further reports:

"This is in addition to the recent secret meeting in Dubai between officials from the Obama administration and the Iranian delegates sent by President Ahmadinejad! According to reports from Iran, in late January/early February, a group calling itself "a trade association" -- all of its members belong to security forces close to Ahmadinejad -- traveled to Dubai where they held clandestine meetings with two American officials with political and military connections."

This is ridiculous.  Either we support economic sanctions or we don't.  If we don't, why not just say so and take whatever flak ensues?  If we honestly believe we can impact Iran's nuclear program with sanctions, then we need to enforce the sanctions--not invite in trade delegations.

As I said before, there are very close ties between the business community in Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  It is very foolish to let this delegation into the United States.  Do we honestly believe that if we sent a business delegation to Iran, there would not be CIA operatives in it?  Why don't we understand that the street goes both ways?

A picture is worth a thousand words.  This picture comes from John Hinderaker at Power Line.  He posted it yesterday.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act spent nearly a trillion dollars.  What did it do?  It destroyed a net of more than one-half million jobs.  The article at Power Line points out:

"...goods-producing industries have completely failed to benefit from ARRA and the Obama administration's other misguided policies."

The policies of the Obama Administration have done more to prolong the recession and destroy private industry in America than they have to foster economic recovery.  It's time they stopped blocking the policies that would allow the American economy to grow again.  Not only do I support drill, baby, drill, I want to see all regulations examined and eliminated in the places where the government has overstepped its bounds.

This is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

According to Examiner.com the Indiana Supreme Court wrote the following in a decision handed down by the the majority on the court:

"a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.  We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily excalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

This is not a comforting decision.  If the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution can be whimsically thrown under the bus, are the other amendments safe? 

Yesterday's New York Post posted an article quoting Senator Orrin Hatch, senior Senator from Utah, on the Hugh Hewitt show, "The Democrats, he said, "play politics very, very tough, they play it well, and they don't give a damn about what's right and what's wrong."

Unfortunately, that has become very obvious because of recent events, both in states and on the federal level.

The article cites recent events in Wisconsin:

"Blindsided last fall by the election of Gov. Scott Walker, the loss of both houses of the legislature and the US Senate seat held by ultraliberal Russ Feingold, the Democrats have simply refused to accept defeat and instead are continuing the fight by any means necessary."

When Governor Walker proposed and passed legislation to limit the collective bargaining power of public-sector unions, threats and intimidation of legislators and citizens who supported the legislation followed.  In other states, where the Democrats were in control of the legislature, the passing of similar legislation got barely a whimper of protest.  The attack was clearly aimed at the Republican governor and Republicans in the legislature--not the issue.

Meanwhile, Boeing aircraft is under attack for wanting to open a new assembly plant in South Carolina.  The National Labor Relations Board is blocking the efforts of the company because South Carolina is a right-to-work state and Washington state, where other Boeing assembly lines are located, is a unionized state.  Last week, the Democrats in Congress held show trials for oil executives in order to divert attention from their own failure to put together a framework for domestic energy independence.  This does nothing to solve the country's energy problem.

This is not politics as usual.  There is an element of intimidation and misuse of power here that is inappropriate in a democracy.  This is a time in our history when we desperately need leadership--not thuggery

The quote "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican," described as the Eleventh Commandment of Ronald Reagan was not actually written by Ronald Reagan.  It was actually the work of California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson.  Yesterday on "Meet the Press", Newt Gingrich broke that commandment in a way that will cost Republicans in Congress and cost Newt in his quest for the presidency.

Byron York at the Washington Examiner commented on the incident this morning on Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" radio show. 

The article reports:

"Republicans are particularly angry about the timing of Gingrich's "Meet the Press" remarks because they came the day before Ryan was scheduled to make a high-profile defense of his budget plan in a speech in Chicago.  Gingrich's attack, those Republicans say, makes it much easier for Democrats to attack Ryan, too."

Aside from the fact that the statement made on "Meet the Press" contradicts earlier remarks he had made previously on the "Morning in America" show ( "Paul Ryan has stepped up to the plate," Gingrich said.  "This is a very, very serious budget and I think rivals with [what] John Kasich did as budget chairman in getting to a balanced budget in the 1990s, just for the scale and courage involved...").  That sort of inconsistency is not acceptable in a presidential candidate.

As a country we desperately need a solution to our spending and debt problems.  Paul Ryan has studied the federal budget for years and has come up with a very workable solution.  It would be a shame to have a Republican with presidential ambitions give Democrats the ammunition to fight that plan.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about the failure of the Democrats in Congress to put forth a budget proposal.  The article reports:

"With the statutory committee deadline having been missed by six weeks, and with 744 days gone by since the Democrat-led Senate passed a budget, it was reported that this week Senate Democrats would finally produce a budget and hold a markup.  But no budget was produced and the markup was delayed yet again. ... [Ranking member Jeff] Sessions summarized the "big problem" facing Democrat leaders during a joint interview with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan on Greta Van Susteren: "they cannot bring forth a budget their members support that the American people will support, and they understand that, they know that, and they've got a big problem." ..."

Unfortunately we have already entered into the 'silly season' for the 2012 election.  It is easier for the Democrats to criticize Republican proposals than to actually come up with a proposal of their own. 

The article further reports:

"...The Hill reported that Senator Conrad shifted the Senate Democrat budget further to the left as a result, coupling every dollar of savings with a dollar in higher taxes - even as the President asserted his so-called framework would achieve three dollars in savings for every one dollar in cuts, albeit a claim that is not borne out by the numbers. ..."

When you vote in 2012, consider which Congressmen had the courage to make proposals and which Congressman were more interested in political gain.  If we can't cut spending with the current Congress, they need to be unelected and a new Congress formed.

Yesterday the New Orleans Times-Picayune posted a story about President Obama's announcement that he plans to expand domestic oil production.

The article reports:

"In his weekly radio address, the president also said he was directing the Department of Interior to hold annual lease sales in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve and to speed up the evaluation of potential oil and gas resources in the mid- and south-Atlantic and to develop new incentives for industry to tap unused leases on and offshore."

Before you break out the champagne, here are some comments from two Louisiana Congressman who are experienced in dealing with President Obama's energy policies:

"...Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who has been among the administration's severest critics on drilling issues.

""It's very encouraging to see the president pick up where he left off before the oil spill by expanding domestic production. That is exactly what we need to increase supply and create jobs," Landrieu said. "I'm also encouraged that this administration is finally going to grant lease extensions to the leases in the Gulf affected by the moratorium."

"But, she added, "drilling permits are still slow in coming. I urge the president to push his team to speed up the process."

"Sen. David Vitter, R-La., dismissed the president's moves as more tactical than meaningful.

""I'm afraid this will be all show and little or no substance," Vitter said. "He's clearly reacting to the price at the pump and trying to pre-empt and block our much bolder efforts in Congress as his election approaches. We all just need to keep pushing very hard -- keep the pressure up."

"A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, described Obama's initiatives as "not terribly substantial," but said that "the president just conceded what his party on Capitol Hill still denies: More American energy production will lower costs and create jobs.""

I am definitely skeptical about seeing increased domestic oil production during President Obama's administration.  I am not the only person who is skeptical.  Yesterday's Los Angeles Times reports:

""The president is finally admitting what Republicans have known all along -- that increasing the supply of American energy will help lower prices and create jobs," Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a written statement. "One weekend address announcing minor policy tinkering, while positive, does not erase the administration's long job-destroying record of locking up America's energy resources.""

Keep watching this.  It will be interesting to see when and if permits get approved.

The article below is written by Len Mead.  It is the story of the Secure Communities Program in Massachusetts.

Northborough Tea Party Crushes Bogus PR Delaying Tactics

of MA Governor to Implement "Secure Communities"

To Conservative friends and local media,

 Here in Democrat "Taxachusetts" it's rare that conservatives can beat well-organized and well-funded Democrat PR tactics.  But chalk up one for the conservatives who just want protection from illegal criminals! 

 A bogus delaying tactic by empty suit governor Patrick Deval to implement a federally mandated program to protect citizens from illegal criminals, called "Secure Communities," has been temporarily crushed by the tenacity of the unwashed Northborough Teaparty patriots lead by John  O'Mara, Ralph Belmore, "Iron" Mike Farquhar and many other concerned conservatives. 

 As quick background for some of you out-of-state readers, "Secure Communities" is a very simple new data-transmission step that could catch millions of illegal criminals when they are arrested by local police -- whether for rape, murder, or even a tail-light out on their unregistered vehicle being driven by an unlicensed (illegal) driver!  Now, when local police arrest someone in 42 states using the Secure Communities program, the police automatically fingerprint the individual and the prints are sent over the internet to the FBI AND ICE,  (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement).  With prints going to ICE, it's quickly possible for the locally arrested individual to be also identified as an illegal alien by ICE so the rapist or murderer can be retained and deported.  BUT NOT IN MASSACHUSETTS!

Because illegals are all possible dependent  Democrat VOTERS if somehow the Obama regime can ram through amnesty!  And as Obama's best empty-suit buddy, MA Governor Patrick Deval has surely been told - just delay implementing Secure Communities until you have to (by 2013 AFTER THE ELECTION!) and maybe we can get them the vote thru amnesty and generate another 12 million Democrat Dependent votes for more hand-outs, food stamps, welfare, and other programs only WE, the sweet, lovable Democrats promise to give them.

 Soooo, Patrick Deval, our Governor, cooks up a "listening tour" of many public meetings to get "input" before "rushing" to protect the safety of state citizens by implementing Secure Communities.  (Don't want to lose valuable Democrat votes by DEPORTING THEM!)  Thus, these meetings have given  vent to organized union-backed "protests" of how deporting identified illegals breaks up families, stops crime reporting, is racist, sexist, bigoted and homophobic (whoops -sorry - got carried away). The liberal media was supposed to have a field day "exposing" conservatives as heartless with these sound bites.

Thank you, Len, for the story.

On Friday, CNS News posted a story about the 2011 Annual Report from the Medicare Board of Trustees.  The report stated what many of us have suspected since the passage of Obamacare--the savings claimed in Obamacare are not guaranteed and may, in fact, be fictional.  The report states:

"Also unknown is how effective the significant federal health legislation enacted in 2010 will be at moderating cost growth for Medicare. If the legislation's cost-reducing innovations in the delivery of and payment for health services were not successful, or if health care providers could not accommodate the slower growth in Medicare payment rates mandated by the new law, Medicare costs would be significantly higher than shown in the Trustees Report.he effects of these endeavors on Medicare's costs are yet to be determined. Also unknown is how effective the significant federal health legislation enacted in 2010 will be at moderating cost growth for Medicare. If the legislation's cost-reducing innovations in the delivery of and payment for health services were not successful, or if health care providers could not accommodate the slower growth in Medicare payment rates mandated by the new law, Medicare costs would be significantly higher than shown in the Trustees Report."

In other words, we have been sold a bill of goods that Obamacare will reduce healthcare costs. 

The article at CNS News states:

"ObamaCare purports to reduce health care costs in two main ways: by forcing providers to implement efficiencies in the short term through gradual and predictable reductions in Medicare payments and by instituting broader health care delivery reforms over the long term. The Medicare Trustees report casts doubt on both approaches.

"In the case of the short-term payment reductions, the Trustees report says that they are likely to cause hospitals to lose substantial amounts of money, forcing them to shift costs onto non-Medicare patients or simply refuse to treat Medicare recipients."

I live in Massachusetts where we have what the Democrats are referring to as "Romneycare," which is supposedly what Obamacare is based on.  Because the media is trying to get Romney out of the Republican primary, they are now running stories about the problems Romneycare has caused.  Last week our local paper ran a story about the fact that more than half of primary care physicians in Massachusets are no accepting new patients.  Waits for office visits are longer, and many people are using emergency rooms because they cannot get in to see a doctor.  Meanwhile the cost to the consumer is skyrocketing.  This is a preview of what Obamacare will be like when it is fully in place.  We truly need to repeal it now, before it is too late.

America is a free country, and Americans are free to invest their savings and wealth anywhere they choose to invest it.  However, the government is supposed to be a marketplace neutral entity that has some sort of fiscal responsibility.  Needless to say, that works in theory, but not always in practice.  But every now and then, someone decides to attempt to change the practice and bring it more into line with the theory.  That happened recently.

CNS News reported Friday that Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) is introducing a bill in Congress that will end energy subsidies in certain areas of the energy market. 

The article points out:

"Pompeo, a freshman who worked with the natural gas industry before being elected to Congress, said he believes in the industry and is an advocate of expanded domestic development.

""What we don't need to do is use our tax code to subsidize them and pick them and favor them," Pompeo said.

"He said that the free market works well and if allowed to work without restriction in the energy marketplace, the best energy resources and technologies will emerge.

""If we will just knock away the barriers, if we get rid of the regulatory impediments, we'll create the next great American energy," Pompeo said.

"In a May 11 letter to congressional colleagues, Pompeo said that in 2009 the federal government spent $18 billion on energy subsidies."

There are a number of interesting aspects of this bill.  First of all, Representative Pompeo is a freshman Congressman.  He hasn't been in Washington long enough to be part of the status quo.  Secondly, he has experience in the natural gas industry and knows what he is talking about.  I have no idea what Representative Pompeo's relationship with the Tea Party is, but it seems to me that he is the kind of candidate they (and everyone else) should be promoting.  He does not seem to be a professional politician, he has common sense, and he has business experience.  Washington needs Congressmen who understand business and are willing to do what they can to pass sensible laws that promote economic growth in America--not Congressmen who want to determine who prospers and who does not.

Fox News reported yesterday that two men, Ahmed Ferhani, a 26-year-old of Algerian descent, and Mohamed Mamdouh, a 20-year-old of Moroccan descent, were arrested in New York City this week for plotting to attack New York synagogues dressed as Hasidic Jews.  The two were arrested in a sting operation where they were sold weapons to carry out their assualt and then taken into custody.

The story is also reported in the UK Mail Online, which stated:

"In an unusual move, the pair were being charged by New York state, not federal prosecutors. Vance said there were four counts under terrorism and hate crimes laws.  The charges carry a potential penalty of life in prison.

"The pair will appear in criminal court in lower Manhattan today, and are likely to face state terrorism rather than federal charges, the New York Post reported.

"It is understood the joint FBI-NYPD anti-terrorism task force were aware of the investigation, but chose not to become involved.

"The case is the first of its kind since U.S. Navy SEALs killed Bin Laden at his Abbottobad compound in Pakistan.

"New York City was placed on high alert immediately after the raid on May 1, with the NYPD and Port Authority putting extra officers on train stations, airports and the subway.

"After Bin Laden's death, CIA director Leon Panetta said: 'Though Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is not.  The terrorists almost certainly will attempt to avenge him, and we must - -and will - remain vigilant and resolute.'"

These men were going to go into a synagogue dressed as Hasidic Jews and start killing innocent people.  If they are tried on state charges rather than federal charges, they will not be subject to the death penalty.  I think that is a serious error in judgment.  We have proven cases of Muslims in jail aiding terrorist operations.  Do we need more?

As I have said before, the problem with the internet is that once you say something publicly, it can be looked up by anyone under any circumstances.  Well, here we are again.

Your Jewish News has reported that Eboo Patel, President Obama's faith advisor, in an October 2009 article in a Newtopia Magazine, stated:

"The problem is that we live in a time when the Muslim totalitarians are dominating. Why? Because they are building powerful institutions that propagate their interpretation of Islam - just as the Christian totalitarians in America have powerful institutions; and the Jewish totalitarians in Israel have powerful institutions...:

This a statement from a faith advisor?  The article reports:

"WND (WorldNetDaily) reported last week Patel blasted what he called the "myths" of America - describing them as beliefs that the country is "a land of freedom and equality and justice.""

This is not an attitude I want in someone who is in a powerful position in America.  I know there are injustices and inequality in America, but they are surely less frequent that in the Muslim countries Mr. Patel sees as ideals.

The article reports:

"In February 2010, Obama named Patel to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

"Patel, a Muslim activist from Chicago, is the founder and executive director of Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, which says it promotes pluralism by teaming people of different faiths on service projects."

I guess I am wondering exactly what a 'Muslim activist' is.  Would a 'Christian activist' or a 'Jewish activist' be named to that position?  I am also very concerned about the concept of Christian totalitarianism.  I happen to be a Christian.  I try to live my life as a Christian.  I would love to see the laws of America reflect Christian (or Judeo-Christian) values.  The founders of America set up the laws to reflect Judeo-Christian values.  However, I do not believe I am justified in murdering anyone because they do not agree with me. 

It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Patel is considered any sort of spiritual authority.

Yesterday John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line about President Obama's attempt to require any company doing business with the federal government to report political donations of their officers and directors--not just those currently required by law, but those contributions to advocacy groups (which are not currently required).

When President Obama couldn't get that legislation passed, in part because it is obviously unconstitutional, the Obama administration announced its intention to institute the same rule by executive order.  So far there has been no executive order, but there has been a response by Congress.

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer's response to this potential law:

"The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor's application and bid and capabilities," Mr. Hoyer said at his weekly press briefing. "There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts."

Thank you, Representative Hoyer, for standing up for free speech and the ability to make political donations without having to worry how those donations would impact the success of your company.

A lot of the decisions made by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have turned out to be very wise when viewed through the lens of history.  I realize there hasn't been a lot of history, but there has been enough to show us things we hadn't thought of at the time.

On Tuesday, Forbes.com posted an article about President Obama's dilemma regarding the future capture of any high-value terrorists. 

The article reports:

"In February, when the Senate Intelligence Committee asked CIA Director Leon Panetta where captured high-level al Qaeda leaders would be taken, he responded: "We would probably move them quickly into military jurisdiction at Bagram for questioning and then, eventually, move them probably to Guantanamo." The administration refused to endorse Panetta's position, but couldn't provide an alternative. "I'm not going to speculate about what, you know, would happen if we were to capture Osama bin Laden," was Press Secretary Jay Carney's reply."

The problem with Guantanamo is President Obama's stated intention to close Guantanamo.  The President is not likely to want to move any prisoners there.  The problem with Bagram is that Afghan President Karzai has made it clear that U.S. detention facilities will close when the troops depart (that departure is scheduled to begin in July of this year).  Some captured terrorists have been turned over to American allies, but that also has its problems--some of our allies have released people that will pose a threat to America in the future.

The writer at Forbes concludes:

"But Gitmo is needed, especially when Bagram closes. One option is for the president to remodel and rename the base. Call it something like "Camp Rehabilitation and Justice, Liberty Bay Cuba," and restore it to what it was meant to be in 2002: an important asset in fighting terrorism.

"Reconstituting Guantanamo, or coming up with a real alternative, is not just desirable but necessary. The death of Bin Laden marks a turning point in the war against al Qaeda, but that war is certainly not over. As a central part of finishing it, we need an effective system for holding, interrogating, and sorting terrorists. That way, pulling out of Afghanistan will be a cause for celebration, not headaches."

The political left expected President Obama to close Guantanamo.  I am not sure renaming it will satisfy his supporters on the left.  It will be interesting to see what happens if we do capture any high-value terrorists as a result of the information seized when Osama Bin Laden was killed.

Today's Daily Caller posted an article about the posturing currently going on regarding raising the debt ceiling.  House Speaker John Boehner has stated that the Republicans would only agree to raise the debt ceiling if spending cuts were put in place that totaled more than the amount of the debt ceiling hike.  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has accused Speaker Boehner of holding the debt ceiling hostage, which Mr. Carney describes as "extremely unwise."

Congress is expected to have to raise the debt ceiling within the next few months.  There are consequences if the debt ceiling is not raised, but there is a definite difference of opinion as to what those consequences are--the stated consequences range from simply forcing the government to prioritize its spending to a total collapse of the American financial system.  As usual, I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

This is the chart from usgovernmentspending.com showing government spending as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

We need to cut government spending.  Otherwise we will become a welfare state with a constant unemployment rate of 8 percent or above.  Putting conditions on raising the debt ceiling would be a beginning in getting spending under control.  Hopefully Congress and the President can come to an agreement on a plan.

Ann Barnhardt is justifiably angry after the hall where she was scheduled to speak in Massachusetts cancelled her presentation at the last minute.  Ms. Barnhardt is a very blunt speaker and evidently that is a problem.  She has posted the following on her website after the venue for her Sunday presentation in Massachusetts became unavailable:

"So, here is what I will do. I will record and deliver EXACTLY the same speech - word for word - that I was going to give in Boston on Sunday and post it on YouTube on Sunday. It will be about 30 minutes long, and I'll split it into three parts. I will also post the text here for distribution. And then we shall see who EXACTLY is the hatemonger, and who EXACTLY is such a dangerous soul that their freedom of speech MUST be suppressed."

Israel, Christendom and the Caliphate: It's a Two-On-One Fight

ACTBoston presents free-speech warrior and Internet sensation

Ann Barnhardt

 Born in Kansas, raised on a farm, and now living and working in Colorado as a commodity broker, Ann Barnhardt is a shining example of the courage and conviction to follow.  Witnessing the mounting subjugation of free speech that masquerades as tolerance, Ann is now an outspoken advocate for our constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

As noted scholar Dr. Andrew Bostom stated, Ann's recent excoriation of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's statement that "Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war" is just the latest example of Ann's passionate defense of free speech in America.

Ann's YouTube video retort to Senator Graham "Have you not read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?" is quickly becoming a rallying cry for free speech warriors across the nation. http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/06/ann-barnhardt-culture-hero/. 

Israel, Christendom and the Caliphate: It's a Two-On-One Fight

ACTBoston presents free-speech warrior and Internet sensation

Ann Barnhardt

 Born in Kansas, raised on a farm, and now living and working in Colorado as a commodity broker, Ann Barnhardt is a shining example of the courage and conviction to follow.  Witnessing the mounting subjugation of free speech that masquerades as tolerance, Ann is now an outspoken advocate for our constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

As noted scholar Dr. Andrew Bostom stated, Ann's recent excoriation of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham's statement that "Free speech is a great idea, but we're in a war" is just the latest example of Ann's passionate defense of free speech in America.

Ann's YouTube video retort to Senator Graham "Have you not read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?" is quickly becoming a rallying cry for free speech warriors across the nation. http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/06/ann-barnhardt-culture-hero/. 

Take this opportunity to meet a true defender of your liberty.

For information email actboston@gmail.com

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported on the double standard involved in inviting poets to the While House.

In 2003 Laura Bush planned a night of reading the poetry of Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes and Walt Whitman.  The event was cancelled when left-of-center poets protested and threatened to disrupt the event.  All of the poets mentioned above are classic American poets that are normally included in high school English classes (or at least they used to be).

Fast forward to 2011.  Michelle Obama is also doing poetry at the White House.  She has invited Chicago poet and rapper, Lonnie Rashid Lunn, Jr., AKA "Common."  The Daily Caller posted a sample of Mr. Lunn's poetry.  It includes death threats, a call to burn President Bush, and other uplifting items.  Some Americans, both on the right and the left, have protested this kind of trash poetry in the White House.  So far, Mr. Lunn is still invited.

Let me get this straight--Emily Dickinson is controversial, but killing people and Presidents is not?  It's time to find a presidential candidate who represents the values of America.  I sincerely hope our current first family does not reflect the values of the majority of Americans. 

This story is one of the most amazing examples of chutzpah I have ever seen.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line quoted the following from a New York Times article:

"I Omar Ossama Binladin and my brothers the lawful children and heirs of the Ossama Binladin (OBL) have noted wide coverage of the news of the death of our father, but we are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead."

The article points out that Al Qaeda thinks Osama Bin Laden is dead and that one of Osama Bin Laden's daughters says that she witnesses his death (in the Islamic world, her opinion does not count because she is a woman), but that is not enough for Osama Bin Laden's son.

The article at Power Line further reports on the comments of Omar Bin Laden:

"If OBL has been killed in that operation as President of United States has claimed then we are just in questioning as per media reports that why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world."

At the end of the article, we see the purpose of this complaint:

"Failure to answer these questions will force us to go to International forum for justice such as International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice and UN must take notice of the violation of international law and assist us to have answers for which we are lawful in seeking them. A panel of eminent British and international lawyers is being constituted and a necessary action may be taken if no answers are furnished within 30 days of this statement."

So Omar Bin Laden is putting together a team of lawyers to go to International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and the UN to charge America with violating international law in the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  Wow.  This is like the families of Bonnie and Clyde suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation after Bonnie and Clyde were tracked down and killed.  It will be educational to watch what happens with the complaint and coming lawsuit.

On Wednesday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Rageh Ahmed Mohammed Al-Murisi, 26, tried to break into the locked cockpit of a flight bound for San Francisco on Sunday night. 

The article reports:

"Al-Murisi walked quickly to the front of the plane while shouting, "Allahu akbar," tried the cockpit door handle and then rammed the door with his shoulder, prompting a flight attendant to yell, "I need help - now!" witnesses said.

"Other flight attendants, retired San Mateo police Officer Larry Wright, a retired Secret Service agent, an off-duty American Airlines pilot, and Olympic shot put champion Bill Nieder jumped from their seats to help subdue him.

"Nieder, 77, of Angels Camp (Calaveras County), who won the gold medal in Rome in 1960, said, "My thought was he was trying to get into the pilots' area. It happened so quick I didn't have time to be scared.""

Mr. Al-Murisi obviously picked the wrong set of passengers to try to do harm to anyone on the plane.  Police Officer Wright stated that he believed that Mr. Al-Murisi was going to attempt to crash the plane.  Officer Wright also stated that after the twin towers fell, he swore to himself that he would never be a victim.

Homeland security is a good idea, but in the end it will be the people at the site of an attack that will make the difference.  The article points out that Mr. Al-Murisi carried no luggage.  I realize that it is not a crime to board a plane without luggage, but I wonder if he should have been looked at more closely when he boarded.  Again, it was the passengers who kept themselves safe.  Way to go!

The Daily Caller reports today that some Democrats do not agree with President Obama's suggested policy that tax breaks for oil companies be ended and the money given to 'green energy' companies.  I thought ending the tax breaks (which all corporations are entitled to--not just oil companies) was to begin to pay down the deficit.  How naive of me. 

The article reports:

"New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, unveiled legislation Tuesday that would end tax breaks for the five largest oil companies -- ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Texaco, and BP -- and funnel the resulting revenue toward deficit reduction."

The President's plan was not to pay down the deficit--it was to reward his political cronies who have invested in 'green energy.'  Has it occurred to anyone that if you raise taxes on oil companies, those taxes will be passed on to the consumer?  Just what we need--higher prices at the pump. 

The article further reports:

"It is not clear how exactly the money would go toward reducing the nation's $1.4 trillion budget shortfall if Congress plans to increase spending through other tax credits anyway. A study published last year found that that since the post-World War II era, the federal government has spent $1.17 for every dollar it brought in, suggesting that in the long run increased revenues were never ultimately used for deficit reduction.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who threw his support behind Menendez's bill, confirmed that the Senate would vote on the measure within a week."

I wonder how long it will take the American consumer to recover from the policies of the Obama administration.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 and signed by then President Clinton.  The act states:

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.'.

In simple terms, Tennessee does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts. 

DOMA also states:

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'.

One of the things the Obama Administration has done lately is declare that it would not defend DOMA in court.  However, that does not change the fact that DOMA is currently the law of the land.  Meanwhile...

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported today:

"The Navy has abruptly reversed its decision to allow chaplains to perform same-sex marriages once the military's ban on openly gay service members is lifted, after dozens of House lawmakers complained.

"Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, chief of Navy chaplains, issued a one-sentence memo Tuesday announcing that the earlier decision has been "suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and inter-Departmental coordination.""

Why the change of course?  The article reports:

"...63 House members wrote to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to object to the Navy's initial ruling, saying the service was violating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act by appearing to recognize and support same-sex marriages."

Whoops.

This is a picture from the UK Mail Online:

The picture is of a smuggling tunnel that runs from Mexico to Arizona. 

This is a map from the same article showing the location of the tunnel:

The tunnel lies 15 feet beneath the ground and is three feet wide and five feet high.  The tunnel runs 250 feet under the US-Mexican border and is equipped with electricity, water pumps and ventilation.

The tunnel, one of many, is the work of Mexican drug cartels smuggling marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines into the United States. 

There are a few things to note about this article.  There is obviously a lot of money in illegal drug trafficking in America.  That is a major part of the problem.  Who is using the drugs?  Why are they using the drugs?  Can they be retrained not to use drugs?  I am so old that there were no drugs in high school when I was there.  There was alcohol and a lot of kids drank on weekends, but it wasn't a common problem.  What happened?  Is the problem the actual drugs or is the problem that we have so warped our values system that drug use is not seen as anything important?  I don't know.  I guess my questions would be to those people buying the drugs, "Are you living the life you want to live?  What would it take for you to find something better to do with your life than take drugs?"

The tunnel is a concern because of the drug cartels and all that those cartels involve (violence, lawlessness, etc.), but it is also a national security concern.  It has been said by people who know such things that terrorists are in the process of making alliances with drug lords in order to get potential weapons across the border.  This tunnel is a nightmare on many levels.  I am glad the authorities discovered this tunnel.  I hope there is a way that we can discourage the building and use of such tunnels in the future.  I wonder if there is a substance we can put in the tunnels that will make them unusable.

On Saturday, Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review on an amicus brief  filed by Attorney General Eric Holder in 2004 on behalf of Jose Padilla.  Jose Padilla was charged with plotting a dirty bomb attack and convicted of aiding terrorists.

The article reports on the brief filed by Attorney General Holder:

"It is a comprehensive attack on Bush counterterrorism, an enthusiastic endorsement of the law-enforcement approach in vogue during the Clinton era (when Holder was deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, who also signed on to the Padilla brief). This might explain why Holder sometimes has difficulty answering seemingly easy questions. That's what happened this week, when the Senate Judiciary Committee quizzed the attorney general on the lawfulness of the U.S. military's targeted killing of bin Laden."

On September 18, 2001, Congress passed the Authorization for Using Military For (AUMF).  According to the website findlaw.com this law states:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Approved September 18, 2001.

This law seems more clear than most of the laws Congress passes.

The article further disagrees with AG Holder's statement that Padillo's arrest was not on a battlefield, he is forgetting that the war on terror has an infinite battlefield:

"Holder was dangerously wrong. Put aside that no war comes with an expiration date. It was not the Bush administration that extended the battlefield "throughout the world." The standards in question were set by al-Qaeda. That is no doubt why Congress prudently did not attempt to circumscribe the commander-in-chief's discretion to determine what the battlefield is. We don't want terrorists to have any sanctuaries.

"This is also precisely why President Obama has "imported wholesale" into his command the traditional concept that a battlefield can be any location where the enemy can conduct operations -- which, in al-Qaeda's case, is any place where its operatives are found. That is the risk a terrorist runs -- being an unlawful combatant who flouts laws of war designed to protect civilians, the terrorist must be denied the privileges that reward lawful combatants for conducting warfare honorably."

If we are going to fight a war on terror, we need to revisit our concept of war.  Hopefully, the Obama administration is beginning to do this.

Yesterday the UK Guardian reported that in late 2001 President Bush and General Pervez Musharraf struck a deal that if "Pakistan would allow US forces to conduct a unilateral raid inside Pakistan in search of Bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the al-Qaida No3. Afterwards, both sides agreed, Pakistan would vociferously protest the incursion."

The deal was struck after Bin Laden evaded United States troops that supposedly had him cornered at Tora Bora.  That deal was executed a few Sundays ago.

The article reports:

"The former US official said the Pakistani protests of the past week were the "public face" of the deal. "We knew they would deny this stuff."

"The agreement is consistent with Pakistan's unspoken policy towards CIA drone strikes in the tribal belt, which was revealed by the WikiLeaks US embassy cables last November. In August 2008, (Prime Minister Yousaf) Gilani reportedly told a US official: "I don't care if they do it, as long as they get the right people. We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it."

"As drone strikes have escalated in the tribal belt over the past year, senior civilian and military officials issued pro forma denunciations even as it became clear the Pakistani military was co-operating with the covert programme."

Sometimes as I watch events unforld, I forget that what I am seeing may not be exactly what is happening.  This is one of those times.  The government of Pakistan is obligated to tell the people of Pakistan that other countries will not be allowed to come in and randomly conduct military operations.  However, I suspect that there are many people in Pakistan who are celebrating the fact that Osama Bin Laden no longer lives there.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line reported an attack on two Christian churches in Cairo, Egypt, on Friday.  Historically there has been a problem in Egypt with Muslim persecution of Christians, but it was kept somewhat under control by the Mubark government.   The 'Muslim spring' that is occurring in the Middle East does not seem to tolerate the rights of Christians as well as Muslims.  This might be something that the West would do well to take note of.

The article reports:

"The attack on the church was the latest sign of assertiveness by an extreme, ultraconservative movement of Muslims known as Salafis, whose increasing hostility toward Egypt's Coptic Christians has met with little interference from the country's military rulers. ...

"The bloodshed began Saturday around sundown when word spread around the neighborhood that a Christian woman who married a Muslim had been abducted and was being kept in the Virgin Mary Church against her will.

"The report, which was never confirmed by local religious figures, sent a large mob of Muslims toward the church. Christians created a human barricade around the building and clashes erupted. Gunfire sounded across the neighborhood, and witnesses said people on rooftops nearby were firing into the crowd."

Our government has proclaimed that Islam is a religion of peace.  That statement does not seem to fit with the intolerance growing in the Middle East as the Muslim spring takes hold and the Muslim Brotherhood increases its presence in nations where it had been previously banned.

"I'm in jail because I stepped on a rock" sounds like a really dumb statement.  Well, let's hope it remains in the realm of fiction.

On Friday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the move to give human rights to nature.  Yes, you read that right.  Van Jones is a the forefront of this effort--you can follow the link to see the video. 

The article reports:

"Actually, what this should be called is the Ambulance Chaser Full Employment Act. It would make law schools the center of American civilization, churning out attorneys for literally every object under the sun, including the sun itself. If people think the EPA and the Endangered Species Act act as a sledgehammer to business (especially energy production), just wait until dirt, rocks, trees, and streams suddenly get specific "rights" standing in court. The entire idea targets private property as a concept. In fact, at least philosophically if not legally, the concept of human rights for nature and natural objects turns private property ownership into a form of slavery."

When you understand that Van Jones is part of the extreme political left that opposes the freedom and prosperity that America has enjoyed, this movement actually makes sense.  The actual target of this movement is 'private property'--one of the bedrocks of America and the American way of life.  If the concept of private property can be undone in America, America can be undone.

One of the more interesting comments posted at the article was the question, "Why are we willing to give rocks human rights, but deny those rights to the unborn?"  Interesting question.

The Daily Mail Online Edition is reporting that "Pakistan Air Forces has strictly and categorically rejected the reports that its radars were inactive during entry of American helicopters into Pakistani air space for Operation Geronimo on May 2, 2011."

On May 3, senior security officials stated at a media briefing that the radar systems of the Pakistan Air Force had been jammed by the US forces during the night of Osama Bin Laden's killing. 

The article reports:

"Earlier, the PAF's Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal Rao Qamar Suleman, accepted the responsibility of air surveillance failure in front of some national media, but dispelled the impression that the Pakistani radars had been jammed by Americans.

"Suleman informed the government that the entry of US helicopters into the Pakistani air space was not detected, as the radars deployed on the western borders were inactive on that day.

"Suleman's statement was in direct contrast to what Pakistan Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir had said during a media briefing in Islamabad on May 5."

Why would you turn the radar off on your borders?  I suspect that this back and forth has to do with the technology of the American helicopters used and the fact that Pakistan is in possession of the tail of one of those helicopters.   The Pakistanis and the Chinese are good friends, and the Chinese are experts at reverse engineering.  This debate could get very interesting.

This is a link to a letter written by J. Michael Luttig, Executive Vice President & General Counsel for the Boeing Company to Lafe. E. Solomon, Acting General Counsel, National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  The letter deals with some of the false accusations that Attorney Solomon has made against Boeing, including statements in the media, concerning the plans of Boeing to build a new plant in South Carolina.

The thing to remember here is that even if Boeing builds its plant in South Carolina and is successful in building the 787 Dreamliner there, the additional expense and aggravation that the NLRB is causing the company will serve as a warning to other companies planning to build manufacturing facilities in right-to-work states.  This is mob-style intimidation and does not belong in American government.

Attorney Luttig points out in his letter that the 787 Dreamliner production line to be built in South Carolina is a new production line and that building it in South Carolina will not cause anyone in Puget Sound or anywhere else to lose their job.

Please read the letter for yourself.  It exposes the lies being told on behalf of unions who do not want to see manufacturing move to right-to-work states.  It is unfortunate that they have government allies to help them discourage companies from moving wherever they choose to move..

Yesterday Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a story about an encounter between Debra Burlingame and President Obama at his Ground Zero event.  The story also appeared in a Washington Post Blog.  A video of the encounter can be found at the Washington Post blog.

Debra Burlingame is the sister of the pilot whose plane was crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. 

Power Line reports on the encounter:

"She (Debra Burlingame) said she was pleased Bin Laden had been killed, but was shocked when Mr Obama turned his back when she confronted him over the prosecution of the CIA agents who interrogated 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

"She told Fox News: "I was very upfront, I said Mr President, I've been one of your most ardent critics, but on Sunday night I was very proud of you, I was very appreciative of what you helped make happen, and I was very proud of America.

""And then he hugged me, but then I said I have a question for you."

"She said: "As a former attorney I know you can't tell the Attorney General what to do, he said, 'No, I can't.'

""But I said 'we - that shouldn't stop you from giving your opinion. We wouldn't be here today if they hadn't done their jobs. Can't you at least give them your opinion.'

""And he said 'no I won't,' and he turned around and walked away.""

The Washington Post reports:

"In addition to eliminating the very techniques that allowed us to track down and kill bin Laden, Obama has permitted the Justice Department to reopen investigation of previously cleared CIA operatives. Muskaey explains: " I say 'reopening' advisedly because those investigations had all been formally closed by the end of 2007, with detailed memoranda prepared by career Justice Department prosecutors explaining why no charges were warranted. Attorney General Eric Holder conceded that he had ordered the investigations reopened in September 2009 without reading those memoranda. The investigations have now dragged on for years with prosecutors chasing allegations down rabbit holes, with the CIA along with the rest of the intelligence community left demoralized."

The killing of Osama Bin Laden was made possible by good intelligence work.  It would not be wise to interfere with any of that kind of work while we are fighting the war against radical Islam.

Today the American Thinker posted an article by Lee Cary entitled, "Charlie Chan and the Mystery of the Mansion Hideout."  The article deals with the detective work that might have uncovered the location of Osama Bin Laden.  It's a wonderful imaginary dialogue between the legendary Chinese detective Charlie Chan and his Number One Son, Jimmy.  (Could you even run that show on television today and not be accused of racism?)

Some of the things pointed out in the dialog:

"Chan: Pakistani authorities report they visited here in 2003 to make such inquiries.  An official says the compound "was raided when under construction" back then.

"Jimmy: So who was living here then, Pop?

"Chan: Here's an aerial photo of the compound from 2004.  Who do you think was?

"Jimmy: It was an empty field!  So how did they visit a compound on an empty field?

"Chan: It must have required great imagination, Number One Son."

That is just a sample from a great article.  Please follow the link above to the article to read the whole thing.  It's very informative and very funny.

Investors.com posted an article stating that the United Nations wants the United States to provide a factual accounting of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.  You would think that they would just say thank you for the elimination of a world-renown terrorist.  If they had followed the ideals behind their founding, they would have said thank you, but unfortunately, they have come a long way since 1945.

Such champions of human rights as Cuba and China want to know the details of the raid.  Navi Pillay, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, has stated that "The United Nations has consistently emphasized that all counterterrorism acts must respect international law."  Amazing.

The article points out that the United States has no moral obligation to comply with the United Nations' request for the details of the raid.

I have a suggestion--let's get out of the United Nations and kick them out of New York.  The United Nations costs us a tremendous amount of money both in the money we give them directly and the problems their presence creates for the residents of Manhattan (traffic problems, double parking, unpaid traffic tickets, etc.).

It was a great country and western song, but it's no way to run a government.  Today's Daily Caller posted an article about the budget blueprint by Democrat Senator Kent Conrad to be released shortly.

Senator Conrad intends to release the budget only minutes before it is marked up in committee.  Senator Conrad explained to Senator Jeff Sessions that he was not going to comply with the request of all the Republican members that there be 72 hours between releasing the budget plan and the committee markup.

The article reports:

""There seems to be a belief that we can never finish a budget and reach an agreement in an open process.  There's gotta be some secret meeting.  Now the vice president's meeting with them, you know, today.  Well, why not?  When did we get to the point that democracy no longer functions?  That open hearings no longer function?  People going off to meet at the Blair House or the basement of the Capitol somewhere, without the American people involved, and try to arrange our financial future?" Sessions said."

The markup on the budget put together by Senator Conrad's group could take place as early as Tuesday.  How's that transparency thing working out for you?

Yesterday Guy Benson posted an aritlce at Hot Air detailing how intelligence gathering by the George W. Bush administration paved the way for the discovery of Osama Bin Laden's compound. 

In a prior column written for Townhall.com, Mr. Benson points out:

"Osama bin Laden was found because the United States military exploited actionable intelligence extracted by subjecting terrorists to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) in secret CIA prisons, by questioning enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, and by capturing a top al Qaeda source in Iraq.

"As long as some liberals remain intent on keeping political score, it must be pointed out that all three sources of these indispensible data points were direct or indirect results of Bush policies - EITs, Gitmo, and the Iraq war - that much of the American Left, including Barack Obama, fought tooth and nail."

The things the Democrats made political and disdained provided the information that led to the killing of Obama Bin Laden. 

Mr. Benson further points out:

"In short, Al-Kuwaiti's existence was flagged by at least one Guantanamo Bay detainee, his role and pseudonym were confirmed by KSM and al-Libi, and his true identity was spilled by an Al Qaeda terrorist operating in Iraq.  It's no exaggeration to assert that all three of these intelligence "strands" may never -- or perhaps would never -- have materialized absent the controversial Bush administration policies listed above.  These facts are not historical footnotes.  They eviscerate a number of core left-wing articles of faith, including the flawed notions that President Bush "took his eye off the [Al Qaeda/bin Laden] ball," that Iraq was unrelated to the larger war on terror, and that EITs are not effective -- not to mention the ongoing obsession with shuttering Gitmo.  As I conclude in the Townhall piece, Presidents Bush and Obama deserve significant credit for this massive accomplishment, and it would be intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise."

Please read the entire article at Hot Air.  The details are very informative.  President Obama deserves credit for deciding to rid the world of Osama Bin Laden, but he had nothing to do with gathering the information that made that mission possible--in fact the politics of the Democrat party did everying possible to prevent America from ever obtaining that information.  As you enter the voting booth in 2012. keep that in mind.

As gasoline prices at the pump climb rapidly, politicians are looking for ways to avoid taking responsibility for ways in which their actions have caused the rapid price rise.  We need to listen carefully to what is being said in order to sort out the political garbage from the facts.

John Hinderaker posted a story at Power Line yesterday laying out the conditions that are responsible for the current obscenity at the gas pump. 

The article reports:

"Harry Reid uttered one of the more brain-dead non sequiturs of recent memory a few days ago:

We have to do something about these soaring gas prices. We need to take away the subsidies of these five major oil companies.

"In fact, of course, the oil companies are huge taxpayers, and the "subsidies" are ordinary deductions that slightly reduce the oil companies' immense tax liabilities. They are not actual government subsidies, like the ones that go to the Democrats' corporate cronies in the "green" energy business, which exists only by virtue of government largesse."

As the argument of taking away routine tax deductions from the oil companies moves through Congress, keep in mind that it is a bogus argument.

Commodity prices are rising rapidly because the dollar has been devaluated in recent years.  Power Line posted the chart below:

The article comments:

CBN News reported today that the House of Representatives voted 251 to 175 yesterday to permanently ban federal funding of abortion.  More than 60 percent of Americans have stated that they do not want their tax dollars used to pay for abortions. 

The article reports:

""As a physician, a family physician who has practiced for 34 years, I can tell you that the taking of innocent life is not health care," Rep. John Fleming, R-La., said.

""And while abortion has been ruled legal by the Supreme Court, in no way does the ability to perform an act require taxpayer funding of the act, especially when it goes against most of their sacred beliefs," explained Rep. Renee Elmers, R-N.C.

"Private citizen Nancy Tanner joined the pro-life lawmakers to voice how much she regrets the abortion she thought would be a quick fix.

""No woman can go through an experience where they take the jar with your baby's body parts and dump it in front of you to count pieces, in front of your eyes," she said. "Makes you think that this is going to be a quick and easy fix.""

As expected, Democrats who support abortion attacked the bill.  The article reports:

""This is about whether we should use the tax code as a moral club to impose the religious beliefs of a few members of Congress on the entire nation," Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif., said.

""The right to choose is absolutely meaningless without access to choice. And HR-3 creates obstacles to access safe, legal, and constitutionally protected health care," argued Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y."

The pro-life Republicans reminded those Democrats that the law did not restrict abortion in any way--it just prohibited the use of taxpayer money to fund it. 

This is a discussion that will continue.  Some of the dialogue reported in the article:

"Democratic Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley even claimed, "There are no taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions. None. Zero."

"But Republicans countered that without a ban, the government itself estimates it would pay for.

""As many as 675,00 abortions each year," Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said.

""And forcing taxpayers to pay for the indiscriminate killing of helpless little baby Americans is not good government," Rep. Trent Franks, R-Ariz., said."

One question that comes to mind when you read the statement of Rep. Bruce Braley is, "If there are no taxpayer dollars being used to pay for abortions, why do you opposed this bill?"  If what you are saying is true, the bill won't change anything.

 I see little hope of this bill making it through the Senate and past the President, but the fact is that more than 60 percent of Americans oppose federal funding of abortion.  Is our government going to respect the wishes of the American voter or the wishes of the abortion industry?

Yesterday's UK Telegraph posted a story detailing some of the problems in the White House version of the raid that killed Osama Bin Ladin. 

The article reports:

"Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off.

"A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound."

Huh? 

The article also reports:

"Mr Panetta also revealed that the US Navy Seals made the final decision to kill Bin Laden rather than the president."

This is also an interesting piece of information. 

The article further reports:

"Lieutenant General Asad Durrani, former head of the ISI, Pakistan's intelligence service, said it was "inconceivable" that his government was unaware of the US raid on Osama bin Laden's compound.

"He claimed his country was forced to deny any knowledge of the raid to avoid a domestic backlash. The ISI's official line has been that bin Laden's compound had "slipped off our radar" after it raided the building in 2003 while hunting for another senior al-Qaeda operative.The agency claims it was unaware that bin Laden was hiding there.

"Lieutenant General Durrani, however, said that the denial was a "political" maneuver by the intelligence services to avoid claims that they were working too closely with the US."

We don't need conspiracy theories--there is so much contradictory information out there about this event. it may take years to sort it all out.  The bottom line here is simple. though--Osama Bin Laden is dead.  That is a good thing for the forces of good in the world.  The details may change or be revealed in the coming days, but this was the end of a man who reveled in killing civilians.  Most civilized people will not miss him.

Yesterday CBN News posted a story about Lars Hedegaard, who was charged with racism under Denmark's hate speech law after telling someone at a gathering about the problem of rape committed against Muslim girls by male relatives. 

The article reports:

"Under Denmark's hate speech law, it doesn't matter if what you said was true. It doesn't matter if it is factual - if it offends someone, you could be charged.

"A guilty verdict hinged on whether what Hedegaard said was intended for a wider audience. A lower court decided it was not, and acquitted him.

"Meanwhile, in a Dutch court on Monday, Dutch parliament member Geert Wilders denounced his hate speech trial as "unjust." He branded it a "political trial" and an attempt to suppress free speech.

"Wilders is on trial for comparing Islam to fascism."

The thing to keep in mind here is the definition of slader under Sharia Law.  The concept of slander under Sharia means saying anything that is perceived to be negative against Islam.  It doesn't matter if what you say is true or not--if it is perceived to be a negative comment about Islam, it can be considered slander (or as in the case of Denmark, hate speech).  This is a very dangerous precedent to set up anywhere.  One of the foundations of a free society is the ability to speak the truth.  I am sure the court that decided this did not intend to move Denmark a step closer to Islamic law, but that is what they have done.  This is a dangerous road to start down. 

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article by Senator James Inhofe about America's energy policy. 

He points out:

"In the debate over rising gas prices, Washington is creating a massive distraction: whether Congress should eliminate tax "subsidies" for oil and gas companies. Of course oil and gas companies don't receive checks, grants, or direct payments from the federal Treasury, so the debate is a red herring. What's really needed is price relief for consumers at the pump. The best way to do that is to produce more affordable energy here at home."

The article points out that the non-partisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) has stated that America's supply of oil, gas, and natural gas combined is the largest on Earth. 

The article further states:

"In fact, according to CRS, which relied on estimates from the Department of Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the Interior Department, we have 163 billion barrels of recoverable oil -- nearly six times higher than what President Obama and the Democrats like to claim. That amount of oil would replace our current oil imports from the Persian Gulf for more than 50 years.

"But this administration is saying no. By restricting supply -- through its de facto moratorium on deepwater permitting in the Gulf of Mexico, and its restrictions on production on federal lands -- prices have gone up. This is exactly what this administration wants. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, for instance, told the Wall Street Journal that "[s]omehow we have to figure out how to boost the prices of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Consider just Great Britain: consumers there pay over $7.00 a gallon for gasoline."

The 'subsidies' for oil and gas companies are not relevant in the discussion of gas prices.  The answer to our anemic economy and the current cost of a gallon of gas is simple--DRILL, BABY, DRILL.  If we don't do that soon, I am not sure our economy will recover.  Remember the good old days of George Bush when gasoline was $ 1.84 a gallon and the unemployment rate was under 6 percent.  Intelligent energy policies would bring us back there rather quickly.  Look at what is happening in the Dakotas with the Bakkan reserve--the unemployment rate in the area of the discovery is approximately 3 percent.

Yesterday Big Peace posted an article about a new book coming out this week, Richard Miniter's MASTERMIND: The Many Faces of the 9/11 Architect, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.  The book reveals a lot about the life of KSM and his various ideas and antics, but there was something in the book that troubles me.

The article quotes the author:

"I was stunned to learn while researching Mastermind that Guantanamo detainees succeeded in convincing prison officials to no longer raise the American flag anywhere they could see it. Each morning on every U.S. military base around the world, the American flag is raised to a bugle.  But in the interests of not offending the detainees, it was stopped at Guantanamo."

Since we are dealing with a culture that worships strength and scoffs at weakness, I think this is a really dumb idea.  I'm sorry if a detainee would be offended by the American flag, but that is not America's problem.  I think the flag should be raised every two feet to remind the detainees where they are and who is in charge of them.  The Muslim culture respects strength--when we act like weakings, we earn their scorn.

FLY THAT FLAG!

On Monday, CBN News posted an article by Erick Stakelbeck (their terrorism expert) on domestic terrorism.  Mr. Stakelbeck begins his article by talking about the Muslim Students' Association (MSA), a large Muslim organization with chapters on hundreds of college campuses in the United States and Canada. 

The article points out:

"...American-born Muslims are behind a growing number of terror plots -- a trend that Attorney General Eric Holder has said keeps him "up at night."

"Many of these homegrown jihadists, Poole noted, once belonged to the MSA.

""Time after time, we see these terrorists -- and not just fringe members. These are MSA leaders, MSA presidents, MSA national presidents, who've been implicated, charged, and convicted in terrorist plots," he said."

I reported in rightwinggranny on March 10 on some of the American leadership in Al Qaeda:

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

There are rumors that Anwar al-Awlaki is on the short list to replace Bin Laden.

I am glad Osama Bin Laden is dead.  He was an evil man who intentionally declared war on civilians.  However, we need to remember that his death will not impact the internal terrorist threat to the United States.  Unfortunately, his death does not end the war on terror.  That war is a conflict between Western Civilization and a tyranny masquerading as a religion that our children will probably still be fighting.  As I said, I am glad Osama Bid Laden is dead, but that will not have a significant impact on the war on terror.  The goal of Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood (the parent organization of the MSA) is a world-wide caliphate.  The death of Bin Laden does not change that.

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I am not Scott Brown's biggest fan.  However, I am glad he was elected and will probably vote for him in 2012.  He may be the best we can do in Massachusetts.  Recently he has done two things that I think are very constructive.

I live in Massachusetts, and our television stations have been running ads accusing Scott Brown of increasing air pollution and harming children.  Besides the fact that the ad itself is playing fast and loose with the facts, it's just a really stupid ad. 

Scott Brown has made the following statement:

If you've been watching TV lately, you're probably aware that I'm the target of a negative attack ad that is running on all the stations. This one seeks to distort my pro-jobs record by suggesting that I voted to hurt sick children. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As a father, I would never put my two daughters or anyone else's children in harm's way. I find this insinuation not only inappropriate, but highly offensive. I cast every vote in the Senate thinking first of how it will affect the people back home. I believe one of our most solemn responsibilities is to protect children, and ensure that their future is bright and prosperous.

To do that, I've made fixing the economy my top priority, and this starts by providing a favorable climate for businesses to grow and create jobs. Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to rising energy prices and legal compliance costs that eat away at their bottom line, and yet everywhere I go in Massachusetts, small business owners tell me they are being strangled by taxes and over-regulation. Burdening our businesses with even more bureaucracy will kill jobs, and that is the last thing our economy can afford right now when we are barely starting to recover.

That is why I voted to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide as a way to end-run the decision by Congress to reject the massive cap-and-trade bill. I feared that cap and trade would have dramatically raised energy prices and cost jobs in Massachusetts and throughout the country.

Make no mistake: I support a clean environment. Last year, I worked across the aisle with Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware and others on bipartisan legislation targeted at keeping our air clean by restricting emissions of pollutants like mercury from power plants. I also worked with Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California on the bipartisan Oil Spill Prevention and Mitigation Improvement Act to help prevent another disaster like the one in the Gulf last year. This Congress, I have introduced legislation that promotes energy conservation in our vehicles and homes that would both help the environment and start to wean us off of foreign oil.

What I do not support is giving unelected and unaccountable agencies like the EPA the power to bypass Congress and impose new and unpredictable regulatory burdens on business. I believe that legislators should craft our energy and environmental policies with a view to ensuring we do not increase joblessness when our economy is still hurting.

Regulations and government overreach were the real issues at stake with this vote -- not dirty air or sick children. It's shocking that a supposedly nonpartisan group like the League of Women Voters has engaged in this demagoguery. In the past, the League has been known as a neutral and issues-oriented group that has helped elevate our public discourse by encouraging active participation in government and educating voters.

By misrepresenting one of my many votes and running a shameful attack ad, the LWV has put its reputation at risk. It has gone into the gutter and become part of the negative politics that voters have rightly rejected.

He's absolutely right about the impact of the EPA's move on business, but the part of this ad that bothers me is the source.  It is put on by the League of Women Voters.  Until recently I had always assumed that the League of Women Voters was a relatively neutral organization in dealing with candidates and elections.  My illusions were shattered last year when I attended a debate that they hosted.  The are not neutral and anything they say should be examined carefully.

The other thing Scott Brown has done recently is to request to do his National Guard Duty in Afghanistan.  Hot Air reported his request on Monday.  He stated:

""As a lieutenant colonel in the Massachusetts Army National Guard, I have service obligations that I fulfill each year.

""Following in the tradition of other lawmakers who have completed their military service requirements overseas, this year I have requested to conduct my annual training in Afghanistan.

""Doing so will help me to better understand our ongoing mission in that country, and provide me first-hand experience for my duties on the Senate Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs committees," he said."

Understand that as part of the JAG (judge advocate general) corps, he will probably not be in combat, but this is still a gutsy decision.  I applaud him for wanted to go and see for himself what is going on there.

Thank you, Senator Brown, for a great statement and a wise move.

Today The Hill posted an article stating that CIA Director Leon Panetta had serious doubts about the government of Pakistan leaking the information if they were informed in advance of the attack on Osama Bin Laden's compound.  I suspect his fears were well founded. 

The UK Telegraph reported yesterday that information contained in the Wikileaks documents claimed:

"Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISID) also allegedly smuggled al-Qaeda terrorists through airport security to help them avoid capture and sent a unit into Afghanistan to fight alongside the Taliban."

There was also additional information from detainees at Guantanamo about cooperation between the Taliban and the government of Pakistan.

The article in The Hill reports:

"Instead of a cave, bin Laden was found to have been hiding in a secure compound in a suburb of Islamabad, Pakistan's capital city. The terrorist leader behind al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks had apparently spent some time at the compound, which sat in an affluent neighborhood near the homes of many retired members of Pakistan's military."

A million-dollar compound near the homes of many of Pakistan's retired military.  And we are supposed to believe that no one knew who lived there?  Wow.

It is becoming rather obvious that Pakistan leaves a bit to be desired as an ally in the war on terror.  The problem is simple, though, if we write them off and they totally go over to support the Taliban openly, do they share their nukes?  Our relationship with Pakistan is an example of nuclear blackmail.  We give them tons of money, they play footsie with the Taliban, but they keep their nukes.  If we stop giving them money, there is a real possibility that they will share their nuclear technology.  Pay attention, we may soon be in a similar situation with Iran, only Iran will not even pretend to be our friend.

The capture of Osama Bin Laden will probably dominate the news cycle until something else comes along--at least two or three days.  Americans have short attention spans--politicians count on that.  Anyway, here is something I hadn't thought about.

A website called Barnhardt.biz posted a very interesting observation yesterday.  I quote:

"Finally, I see a headline on Drudge tonight with a story indicating that a tremendous haul of intelligence was harvested from the compound Bin Laden was allegedly inside and that the location of Al-Zawahiri was contained in that data, with an intel officer quoted as saying, "That's where we are headed next."

"Okay. If you can't see that that report is COMPLETE B.S., then I don't know what to say. Do you HONESTLY believe that if intel like that was actually acquired that it would be announced to the media AND the announcement would be made to Al-Zawahiri himself that we know where he is and we are coming to get him? REALLY? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE THAT?

"Here is what WOULD HAVE BEEN SAID if a huge intel stash was recovered:

""There were several computers, hard drives and thumb drives retrieved in the compound, but they were kept "clean" and contained nothing more than a few standard topographical maps and other mundane files. Further analysis will be done, but no significant intelligence yields are expected."

"THAT is what would have been said, NOT, "Hey Al-Zawahiri! We know exactly where you are and we are coming to get you right now. We'll be there in the next 24-48 hours, so please make certain that there is someone at home to answer the door.""

What in the world is going on here?  Do we think Al Qaeda is dumb?  Is the President so desperate for approval numbers that he is making it up?  Do we think this will scare Al Qaeda into doing something stupid?  Did we do something stupid?  If the intelligence community has any intelligence, they will keep quiet about what they found.  My real question is, "Is Obama running the public relations for the intelligence community?"  If he is, we are all in trouble.

These quotes are from a Power Line article posted yesterday:

"Nancy Pelosi, press conference, September 7, 2006:

"[E]ven if [Osama bin Laden] is caught tomorrow, it is five years too late. He has done more damage the longer he has been out there. But, in fact, the damage that he has done ... is done. And even to capture him now I don't think makes us any safer.

"Nancy Pelosi, earlier today:

"The death of Osama bin Laden marks the most significant development in our fight against al-Qaida. ... I salute President Obama, his national security team, Director Panetta, our men and women in the intelligence community and military, and other nations who supported this effort for their leadership in achieving this major accomplishment. ... [T]he death of Osama bin Laden is historic...."

Unfortunately we have already begun the 2012 election season.  Listen carefully.

On Friday Hot Air posted an article about Mitch Daniels, Governor of Indiana, signing a bill to  cut off government funding to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion provider. Indiana will become the first state to take such an action.

The government funds abortion indirectly by allocating Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood when it serves Medicaid patients.  In signing this bill, Governor Daniels runs the risk of the government cutting off Medicaid funds to the state.  Federal law does provide that a state can't be selective in allocating Medicaid funds to medical providers who serve Medicaid patients.

The article also reports:

"His message to Planned Parenthood as the screaming begins: "Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions." Exactly. We're constantly assured by the left that abortions are only the teeny-tiniest insignificant little part of the services that PP provides. Should be easy for them to go cold turkey, then, if they're keen on that Medicaid money. Nevertheless, to no one's surprise, they're already planning a court battle."

The Hyde Amendment, passed in 1976, was supposed to bar the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions.  Planned Parenthood has gotten around the law simply by claiming that federal funds were used for other activities.  

Here is some information on Planned Parenthood's Budget from a website called Life Dedcisions International:

"PPFA's income for fiscal year 2008-2009 was more than $1.1 billion (up six percent from 2007-2008), with nearly one-third coming from taxpayers. This "not-for-profit" entity ends virtually every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in "excess revenue over expenses" (known to most people as "profit"). The "excess" for 2008-2009 alone was $64.4 million.

 

"On June 30, 2009, PPFA had net assets valued at $994.7 million, of which $396.3 million was unrestricted (essentially a savings account) and $179.9 million was temporarily restricted. Despite these huge sums, PPFA incessantly claims to need more taxpayer dollars."

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about the Dunes Sagebrush Lizard. 

The article reports:

"Last December, the Fish and Wildlife Service announced that the lizard, a three-inch-long reptile native to the American Southwest, "faces immediate and significant threats due to oil and gas activities and herbicide treatments" and initiated the process to get it listed under the Endangered Species Act.

"In 2002, the Center for Biological Diversity first petitioned to have the lizard, originally considered a subspecies of the common sagebrush lizard, listed as endangered. The Bush administration delayed consideration for six years. Last year, the Obama administration put it back on the fast track."

The article further reports:

"...Steven Chu, Obama's secretary of energy, [has] expressed a fondness for high European gas prices as a means of reducing consumption of fossil fuels. In a September 2008 newspaper interview, he said: "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Gas prices in Europe then averaged about $8 a gallon.

"As gas prices here soar toward $5 a gallon, Chu's friends at the Interior Department may help him and President Obama get the rest of the way toward their goal. If the dunes sagebrush lizard, now considered a separate species, is granted endangered status, oil and gas production in the Permian Basin in New Mexico and Texas may have to be shut down."

If we are to remain free and prosperous in American, we need leaders who understand the stategic and practical need to develop our own sources of carbon-based fuel.  Whether we like it or not, carbon-based fuel is the economic engine of a thriving ecoonomy.  I just hope the next administration can undo the damage done by this president's energy policies.

I think that's old news already.  My aim with this story is to provide links to some of the more thoughtful comments posted on the internet about the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Today's Washington Examiner details how Osama Bin Laden was located.  The breakthrough began with information obtained at Guantanamo after 9/11. 

The Washington Examiner reported:

"No other country, not even Pakistan, was informed of any of this intelligence until after the raid to protect operational security."

This is key to understanding what actually happened and what happens next.

Victor Davis Hanson reports at the National Review:

"Finally, this comes at a fortunate time. No one is talking of victory any more in Afghanistan; we seem confused in Libya, so the death of bin Laden reminds us that the U.S. can still take the war to the enemy in his own backyard, and act with confidence and audacity rather than "leading from behind." Let us hope that Dr. Zawahiri is next -- though the al Qaeda generation of 2001 seems almost enfeebled now, and are nearly all scattered, killed, or captured."

The important point here is that the al Qaeda generation of 2001 is enfeebled--however, remember that there is a new generation of al Qaeda which may be much less centralized.

Yahoo News posted a Reuters story which stated:

""The damage bin Laden had caused Islam is beyond appalling and a collective shame," said another Saudi, Mahmoud Sabbagh, on Twitter.

"Another, anonymous, Saudi said: "He might have had a noble idea to elevate Islam but his implementation was wrong and caused more harm than good. I believe his death will calm people down and may dry up the wells of terrorism.""

It will be interesting to see how terrorists react to the loss of their spiritual leader.  I suspect that there are plans as we speak for revenge against the 'infidels.'

The thing to remember here is that the death of Bin Laden is more symbolic than relevant.  His death provides closure for all the people who lost loved ones on 911.  I remember a friend whose daughter worked in the second tower waiting for the phone call from her daughter telling her everything was ok.  That call never came.  But the death of Bin Laden does not change the fact that terrorism is alive and well in the world and aiming to create a world-wide caliphate.  This victory is merely an important step in fighting for the survival of western civilization.  It is not the end of the war on terror, it is only a step.

On Thursday, Freedomworks posted an article about a provision of Obamacare that was somehow overlooked in the debate.

This is the provision as stated in the article:

"Here's the relevant legal language from 1311(a):

"(1) PLANNING AND ESTABLISHMENT GRANTS.--There shall be appropriated to the Secretary, out of any moneys in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, an amount necessary to enable the Secretary to make awards, not later than 1 year after enactment of this Act, to States in amounts specified in paragraph (2) for the uses described in paragraph (3).

"(2) AMOUNT SPECIFIED.--For each fiscal year, the Secretary shall determine the total amount that the Secretary will make available to each State for grants under this subsection.

"(3) USE OF FUNDS.--A State shall use amounts awarded under this subsection for activities (including planning activities) related to establishing an American Health Benefit Exchange, as described in subsection (b).

. . . 

"(4)(B).-- "No grant shall be awarded under this subsection after January 1, 2015.""

What this does, essentially, is set up a slush fund that will end in 2015. 

The article further reports:

"Under Mr. Obama's approving eye, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Kathleen Sebelius, is already busy using this uncapped fund to seduce states into collaborating in the implementation of Obamacare. She's issued nearly $50 million in grants to help states "plan and evaluate" how they'll set up exchanges by 2014 as the law requires them to do."

Unfortunately, we are about to see how principled our state governments are.  I'm not optimistic.  Please follow the link to the article to read further details of this aspect of the bill.

In 1951 the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) set the date of a week after the seventh day of Passover as Yom Hashoah Ve-Hagevurah (Day of Remembrance of the Holocaust and teh Heroism).  The date marks the anniversary of the uprising in the Warsaw Ghetto.  Today in celebration of that day, my husband and I went to Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts, and listened to two people deeply affected by the Holocaust tell their stories.

Marga Dieter told her story of being a young child in Germany during World War II.  She was born in 1939 and as a young child spent time hiding in bomb shelters as her country was bombed.  At one point in her life, her mother was taken away by the SS because one of her brothers had reported something her mother said or did.  Her father served in the German Navy.

Zella Brown is the daughter of Jewish Holocaust survivors.  She spoke of growing up hearing her father talk about being in thirteen concentration camps, including Auschwitz, and seeing his pictures of what had happened in the camps.  Her father was one of the few concentration camp survivors who told his story to everyone who would listen.

The two women were part of a seminar at Harvard University in 1992 when Jews and Germans shared their stories.  Marga spoke of being ashamed as she heard the stories from the Jews and not really knowing how to share her story. 

Obviously the two stories are very different, but each has a valid story to tell.  One of the things said early in the presentation was that nothing we do can bring back the people who were killed or change history.

It was encouraging to see the friendship and respect between these two women, but I do have a few observations which probably do not go along with the spirit of the event.  There is no moral equivalency here.  I had the impression that Marga's family did not support Hitler, and she explained some of the events that allowed him to rise to power.  But the fact remains that he rose to power and no one inside Germany successfully stopped him from building the concentration camps and killing innocent people.  The part of the presentation I disagreed with was the idea that war is not the way to solve anything.  My question at that point becomes, "How do you suggest we should have dealt with Hitler?"  I am not sure anything other than war would have worked.

War is a terrible thing, and what happened in Germany during World War II was a terrible thing--both for the Jews and many innocent German people.  We cannot change that, and I applaud these two women for speaking out so people can hear the pain caused by war.  Unfortunately, we live in a less than perfect world, and every now and then you have to fight to stop evil.  If the German people had successfully killed Hitler after it became obvious what he was doing, World War II might have been avoided.  Other than that, I think that World War II was inevitable after Kristallnacht in November of 1938.

Unfortunately this story is another example of how the government misuses taxpayer dollars.  The story is from the Washington Times.  It was posted on Thursday, April 28.

The federal government announced this week that it will be going to court to stop Rainbow Acres Farm, an Amish farm in Pennsylvania, from selling its contraband to customers in the Washington area.  No, the Amish are not selling illegal herbs or untaxed tobacco--they have sold raw milk to customers who needed it because they had health problems with pasteurized milk. 

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) contends that raw milk can carry harmful bacteria, such as salmonella, E. coli and listeria.  The FDA has gone on the record saying that raw milk should never be consumed. 

I understand the FDA's desire to protect public health, but I really think they have gone too far this time.  This case involved a yearlong sting operation which included aliases, a 5 a.m. surprise inspection and surreptitious purchases from Rainbow Acres Farm.  I realize we are no longer a society that has a lot of small farms, but in past generations, how many people grew up on farms and routinely drank raw milk?

The article reports:

""I look at this as the FDA is in cahoots with the large milk producers," said Karin Edgett, a D.C. resident who buys directly from Rainbow Acres. "I don't want the FDA and my tax dollars to go to shut down a farm that hasn't had any complaints against it. They're producing good food, and the consumers are extremely happy with it."

"The FDA's actions stand in contrast to other areas where the Obama administration has said it will take a hands-off approach to violations of the law, including the use of medical marijuana in states that have approved it, and illegal-immigrant students and youths, whom the administration said recently will not be targets of their enforcement efforts."

The customers of the farm were not happy about the actions of the FDA.  The article reports:

"Mr. Allgyer's customers declined to talk about the operations, and when asked whether they knew what would happen to the farm's distribution, they said they would have to wait and see.

"One of those customers, Liz Reitzig, president of the Maryland Independent Consumers and Farmers Association, said she started looking for raw milk when her oldest daughter began to show signs of not being able to tolerate pasteurized milk.

"She first did what's called cow sharing, which is when a group of people buy shares in owning a cow, and pay a farmer to board and milk the cow. But Maryland outlawed that practice and she was forced to look elsewhere for raw milk, and turned to Mr. Allgyer's farm.

""We like the way they farm, we love their product, it's super-high-quality, they're wonderful. It's just a wonderful arrangement," she said.

""FDA really has no idea what they're talking about when they're talking about fresh milk. They have no concept - they really don't understand what it's like for people like me who have friends and family who can't drink conventional milk," Ms. Reitzig said."

Somehow I think the FDA should have better things to do with its time and its money than to hassle an Amish family farm in Pennsylvania.