June 2011 Archives

The New York Post posted an editorial yesterday on the President's proposals to deal with the debt ceiling.  The Post quoted some of the language used at the President's press conference:

""The tax cuts I'm proposing we get rid of" -- that is, the tax hikes he wants to impose -- "are for millionaires and billionaires . . . oil companies and hedge-fund companies and corporate-jet owners," Obama said.

Choosing "to keep those tax breaks" -- that is, to avoid hikes -- "means we got to cut kids off from getting a college scholarship" and "stop funding certain grants for medical research."

"Not only that: "Food safety may be compromised," he warned. "Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden . . . "

"Why not just predict the end of all life as we know it, absent tax hikes?"

 

This is ridiculous.  Does anyone actually believe that every dollar spent by the federal government is so critical that a spending cut will endanger lives?

On July 11, 2010, the Washington Examiner reported:

"...The story for public sector employment, however, is quite the opposite. At 4.4 percent, the unemployment rate among government workers is almost exactly half that of the private sector. But the insulation of government workers from the market realities that private sector workers face is far from the whole story. The federal work force is expanding, not contracting, thanks to Obama initiatives like a health care program that adds 16,000 new Internal Revenue Service enforcers to ensure compliance with the individual mandate. Between December 2008 and December 2009, the federal government added nearly 100,000 new positions."

Somehow I don't think not having enough money for the government is the problem.  As the government grows, the private sector shrinks.  The President might want to keep that in mind as he continues he quest to lower unemployment.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about President Obama's press conference.  Mr. Hinderaker points out that most Americans understand that the debt problem has more to do with spending than it does with lack of taxes. 

The article posts John Boehner's response to the President's press conference:

"The President's remarks today ignore legislative and economic reality, and demonstrate remarkable irony. His administration has been burying our kids and grandkids in new debt and offered no plan to rein in spending. Republicans have been leading and offering solutions to put the brakes on this spending binge. The President has been AWOL from that debate.

"The President is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the House. The votes simply aren't there - and they aren't going to be there, because the American people know tax hikes destroy jobs. They also know Washington has been on a spending binge for many years, and they will only tolerate a debt limit increase if we stop it.

"The new majority in the House is going to stand with the American people. A debt limit increase can only pass the House if it includes spending cuts larger than the debt limit increase; includes reforms to hold down spending in the future; and is free from tax hikes. The longer the President denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process. If the president embraces a measure that meets these tests, he has my word that the House will act on it. Anything less cannot pass the House."

That pretty much sums it up.  The voters made it clear in 2010 that they did not support the tax and spend programs currently happening in Washington.  Any Republican or Democrat that is up for reelection in 2012 will not be willing to vote for any tax increases.  The class warfare may work on some people, but most Americans are smarter than that.

Yesterday a website called postcrescent.com posted an article detailing what has happened as a result of the law passed in Wisconsin after the heated budget debate.  The changes in collective bargaining rules for public employees went into effect yesterday, and there has already been an impact.  The budget of the Kaukauna Area School District will move from a projected deficit of $400,000 to a $1.5 million surplus due to healthcare and retirement savings. 

The article reports:

"The Kaukauna School Board approved changes Monday to its employee handbook that require staff to cover 12.6 percent of their health insurance and to contribute 5.8 percent of their wages to the state's pension system, in accordance with the new collective bargaining law, commonly known as Act 10.

""These impacts will allow the district to hire additional teachers (and) reduce projected class sizes," School Board President Todd Arnoldussen wrote in a statement Monday. "In addition, time will be available for staff to identify and support students needing individual assistance through individual and small group experiences.""

If the change in the law results in smaller class sizes (which it is expected to do), isn't that what the teachers said they wanted? 

It is interesting that this information comes out just before the Republicans face their recall election on July 12 and the Democrats on July 19.  The voters of Wisconsin will have the last word on whether they approve of the antics involved in blocking (or passing) the law which changed union collective bargaining rights for public employees.

Today's Daily Caller is reporting that North Korea became the president of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament as of Tuesday.

The article reports:

"According to the U..N. summary of the meeting, North Korea's So Se Pyong addressed the 65-member arms control forum, saying that "he was very much committed to the Conference and during his presidency he welcomed any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the body.""

The article further reports that Syria (despite recent brutality toward civilians) is set to join the United Nations Human Rights Council.

One way to cut the United States budget would be to stop paying our United Nations dues and kick the organization out of New York City.

Fox News reported yesterday on testimony from Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen, nominated to replace Gen. Petraeus as head of coalition forces in Afghanistan. 

This is his response to questions being asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham:

GRAHAM: The option that the country has chosen through President Obama is to withdraw 10,000 this year, all surge forces gone by September. Is it fair to say, General Allen, that was not one of the options presented to the president by General Petraeus?

ALLEN: It is a more aggressive option than that which was presented.

GRAHAM: My question is, was that a option?

ALLEN: It was not.

If you follow the link above, you can read more of the testimony.  What we have here is a Commander-in-Chief with no military experience ignoring the advice of one of his most experienced generals.  This is a political calculation--not a winning strategy.  This is highly unfortunate and will harm America's war effort and America's image around the world.

Bob McDonnell, governor of Virginia, posted an article at the Wall Street Journal on Saturday detailing some of the progress some Republican state governors have made in dealing with their state budget deficits.

For example, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie signed a law this week that will reform the health-care and pension benefits paid to state employees.  The law will bring the contributions of the state employees more into line with the contributions made by employees in the private sector.

Governor McDonnell relates what has happened in Virginia since he took office:

"When I became governor of Virginia in January 2010 we faced two historic budget shortfalls totaling $6 billion. The proposals to close these shortfalls spanned the philosophical spectrum. Shortly before leaving office, my predecessor, outgoing Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine, put forward a massive $1.8 billion income-tax hike as one of his solutions.

"I knew that in an economy struggling to recover, raising taxes was a nonstarter. So we set forth on a different path. We balanced Virginia's books by reducing state spending to 2006 levels, putting in place a hiring freeze in state government, making conservative revenue estimates and incentivizing state employees to save taxpayer dollars. The result was a budget surplus just a few months later."

The proof is in the pudding.  The article goes on to list other Republican governors who have made changes in their states to improve the business climate, cut deficits, and create jobs.  These governors include Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, Ohio Governor John Kasich, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, and Florida Governor Rick Scott. 

Governor McDonnell concludes:

"There's a reason that no Republican governor seeking re-election has lost a general election since 2007, while three Democrat governors have fallen in that same period. Voters expect their state executives to make tough decisions with future generations, not weekly polls, in mind. That's exactly what Republican governors have done and what President Obama has failed to do. And that contrast will make a difference at the ballot box in November 2012, to the advantage of the Republican presidential nominee."

Because we have a President who does not seem to understand basic economics, the chances of our getting out of the current recession or debt problem without a change of direction from his administration are very slim.  President Obama needs to follow the example of the Republican governors who have lowered spending, lowered taxes, and created an environment the grows jobs. 

Townhall.com posted an article on the President's news conference this morning.  The article pointed out that President Obama called for tax hikes on the wealthiest Americans while demonizing the oil and gas industry.  Does anyone remember the history of raising taxes on the 'wealthiest Americans?'

The website Watching America reminded us in March of this year:

"The U.S. enacted a luxury tax in November 1990, established by Congress and signed by President George H.W. Bush. Buyers of private yachts, planes, furs, jewelries and luxury cars are levied excise taxes. When luxury goods exceed certain prices, they are charged with excise taxes. For example, yachts below $100,000 are taxed at regular rates, and for yachts above $100,000, in addition to the regular rates, a 10 percent tax is charged on the excess amount.

"At that time, the bill was idealistic and simple to understand -- only the rich can afford luxury items, and a tax on the rich fulfills social justice. Although the bill violates Bush's election promise to "not raise taxes" during his term as president, he did not receive much opposition in proposing the luxury tax.

"However, in August 1993, two years after its introduction, the U.S. Congress decided to end the "luxury tax" because the tax revenues were disappointing and the livelihoods of common folks who made a living by selling "luxury items" were negatively impacted."

 

The increase in taxes had the necessary effect--the Democrats attacked George H. W. Bush during the 1992 election campaign because he had raised taxes, the economy went into a slump, people were unhappy about the recession, and Bill Clinton was elected as President.

Part of the problem here is that 92 per cent of the people in the Obama administration have no business experience. 

Start Thinking Right posted this list of the percentage of people with business experience in past presidential administrations:

T. Roosevelt........ 38%
Taft......................40%
Wilson ................. 52%
Harding................49%
Coolidge.............. 48%
Hoover................. 42%
F. Roosevelt......... 50%
Truman.................50%
Eisenhower.......... 57%
Kennedy.............. 30%
Johnson................47%
Nixon................... 53%
Ford..................... 42%
Carter................... 32%
Reagan.................56%
GH Bush.............. 51%
Clinton ................. 39%
GW Bush............. 55%

The number for the Obama administration is 8%.

As states begin to cut back their bloated governments to make ends meet, it is time for the federal government to follow their example.  I do not support raising the debt ceiling unless there are some serious spending cuts.  The President can make all the speeches and hold all the press conferences he wants, but all that he is doing is convincing me that he has no clue as to how to turn this economy around.  He needs to start listening to the Republicans (highly unlikely) if he truly wants to see our economy recover.

As the debt ceiling approaches and the talks on how to deal with it seem to be floundering, there are a lot of suggestions as how to deal with our national debt.  There is also the concept of 'shared sacrifice' being thrown around.  I just want to make a few observations about what 'shared sacrifice' means to Democrat legislators.  'Shared sacrifice' means taking money from the people who worked for it and earned it and giving it to people who did not.  You think I am kidding?  Have you heard the discussions on the need to 'means test' Social Security and Medicare?  As a senior citizen, I object--I have paid into Social Security all of my working life, and I have paid into Medicare for most of my working life.  I might be open to some means testing for Medicare if Obamacare had not robbed $500 billion dollars from the program, but I am not open to means testing under current circumstances.  As for Social Security, most living Americans have paid into Social Security all or most of their working lives.  Congress has, through the years, chosen to spend the taxes collected for Social Security for other things.  I don't believe that I should be penalized for their fiscal irresponsibility.  Let's means test their retirement!  Also keep in mind, if you means test Social Security, you are simply setting up a welfare program for old people that everyone is forced to contribute to, but everyone cannot collect from.  People who pay into the system all their lives and work hard for their future will be penalized, and people who do not plan for the future will be rewarded.  Is that a lesson we want to teach anyone?  If you want to means test Social Security, you need to give taxpayers the option of not paying money into it if they agree not to collect from it.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about Larry Kudlow's suggestion to Laura Ingraham on how to get the economy growing again.  Amid his suggestions, he made an interesting observation:

":I have never seen--the Democratic Party has an obsession over the Bush tax cuts.  It's like, whatever the problem is they repeal the tax cuts.  It's like they need a 12-step program to deal with their obsession and anger over the Bush tax cuts.""

In the process of the conversation, he also made a few very positive suggestions about how to turn around the economy:

"...a nice simple plan, significant spending cuts to deal with the debt problem.  And then at the same time, slash the business tax rate to 15 percent, with no deductions and stop all of this rhetoric about ending the Bush tax cuts, particularly for the small business owners and the most successful earners."

That is the kind of program that will put America back on the path to prosperity.

DVIDS (defense video & imagery distribution system) reported today that a senior Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan leader and two associates were captured during a nighttime security operation in Kunduz District, Kunduz province, Afghanistan yesterday. 

The article reports:

"The leader, who also supported the Taliban network, was responsible for planning attacks against the Afghan National Police. He also facilitated suicide bomb operations and coordinated attacks against other Afghan security forces."

The leader attempted to disguise himself as a female by wearing a burka.  This is not the first time the burka has been used to disguise a terrorist to escape from American or Afghan forces.  The burka has also been used to hide suicide bombs used in attacks in Iraq.  Frankly, you can hide a lot under a burka. 

My local paper, The Attleboro Sun Chronicle posted a story today entitled, "Growing up in a porn culture."  The article is the first part of a two-part series precipitated by the rape of a 14-year old girl at a local middle school in Attleboro by a 15-year-old boy.  The article cites a number of other incidents involving teen or preteen boys attacking girls. 

The article reports:

"The pervasive nature of pornography, both in print and on the Internet, and sexually exploitive behavior on TV and in the movies, some say, are increasingly influencing adolescents - especially boys - to adopt casual or irresponsible attitudes toward the opposite sex."

I am not in any way shape or form an expert, but I am an observer, and I take issue with this statement.  The strongest influence on children, even through their teen years, is the family they grow up in.  Not what they are taught--but what they see.  If dad has an attitude problem dealing with mom, children pick that up.  If dad generally respects women, the children pick that up.  I am not condoning the porn culture we live in--it exists, but there are ways to combat it.  First of all--put any computer children or teens have access to in an area where mom or dad can see what is on the screen.  You don't have to look over their shoulder, but the fact that you can should be enough to keep them somewhat in line.  Secondly--as a parent, you are in charge of the video games they play in your house.  They may play junk in other places, but you are in charge in your house.  You are also in charge of what they watch on television in your house.  You can't control the world, but you can control the environment in your home.

Our society is not responsible for the rape of this young girl--a very disturbed young man is responsible for that.  You can debate why he is disturbed or how he got disturbed, but he is guilty.  This is not a childhood prank--this is an assault on a young woman, and the young man needs serious counseling and a serious attitude adjustment.  If the counseling and attitude adjustment do not occur, he needs to be locked up for a very long time.  I honestly do not know if there is hope for a 15-year old who is guilty of rape.  We could get into a discussion about the impact a spiritual change can have on a person's life, and I believe that would be the only answer, but barring that, society needs to be protected.  I hope at least the 15-year old has been kicked out of school.

I have recently listened to a person I am close to explain to me that all the government of Afghanistan really wants from America is American money.  His claim is that as long as they get American money, they really don't care a lot about what happens in their country.  I attempted to argue with this person, but sometimes things happen that make me wonder if he is right.  This is one of those times.

On Saturday, Reuters reported that Iranian Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi visited Afghanistan on Saturday to strengthen ties between the two countries as American forces prepare to leave.

The article reports:

""The Islamic Republic of Iran considers Afghanistan's security as its own security, has put a lot of effort towards stability in Afghanistan and will continue to help in this regard," Iranian state broadcaster IRIB quoted Defence Minister Ahmad Vahidi as saying."

This is the international equivalent of the fox worrying about the safety of the hens in the henhouse and offering to help protect them. 

Ahmad Vahidi is listed on the Interpol website as a wanted criminal.  He is suspected of participating in the bombing of a Jewish Community Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 1994.  He is also reportedly the former commander of the Qods Force of the IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps).  Generally speaking, he is not someone who would be interested in supporting a democracy in Afghanistan that has freedom of religion and freedom of speech.  In parenting terms, he is not someone you would want your children hanging around with.

The Reuters article further reports:

"While Iran will be happy to see the start of a drawdown in U.S. troops, it is concerned about drug smuggling from Afghanistan -- the world's biggest exporter of opiates -- and the presence of al Qaeda in the region.

"U.S. military officers have long alleged Iranian support for the Taliban. Britain said this year that NATO had identified a cache of weapons seized in Afghanistan as coming from Iran and destined for Taliban insurgents.

"Afghan President Hamid Karzai has acknowledged that his office receives "bags of money" from Iran, which he says is a form of aid that helps cover presidential palace expenses."

This is what happens when you don't actually win the war and make fundamental changes in the way the country is run.  That is the difference between Afghanistan now and Japan after World War II--Japan's culture was alien to western culture.  Now, Japan has kept its individuality as a nation, but has become a positive force among the nations of the world.

Newsbusters posted an article yesterday about an on-air conversation between Andrew Breitbart and John Stossel that occurred on Fox Business News on Thursday.  As the two men chatted, John Stossel admitted that Andrew Breitbart had offered him the James O'Keefe/Hannah Giles/ACORN scoop and that he had refused it due to network politics (he worked for ABC at the time). 

The question I have is this, "If ABC's politics and policies were such that John Stossel refused to air a valid news story, does Mr. Stossel have more freedom at Fox Business Network?" 

How much of the news is the American public not exposed to because of the political bias of the media reporting it?  That is why I am willing to surf the internet to find the stories the mainstream media did not carry.

There is a story going around the internet stating that the partnership between Delta Airlines and Saudi Arabian Airlines could present a problem for certain Delta travelers.  Saudi Arabian Airlines is expected to join the SkyTeam Alliance that Delta is a part of.

CBN News reported today that there were concerns about whether or not Jewish-Americans would be allowed on Saudi Arabia airlines.  The article reports:

""Rumors being circulated via the Internet regarding passenger flight restrictions on Saudi Arabian Airlines are completely false," Saudi Embassy spokesman Nail Al-Jubeir said in statement sent to CBN News Friday.

""The Government of Saudi Arabia does not deny visas to U.S. citizens based on their religion," he said.

"Delta issued a statement Friday rejecting the discrimination claims. The airline company said it does not operate in Saudi Arabia nor does it "codeshare" (sell Delta seats on flights operated by other carriers) with airlines that serve that country."

On Friday, Hot Air posted an article which reported some of the history a Jewish traveler in Saudi Arabia:

"Here's an interesting series of communications from a few years ago involving a Jewish woman traveling with a group to the Kingdom whose visa was denied, even though everyone else's was approved. No one knows why, said her travel agent, but "it is likely religion played a significant role." It's easier to get away with discrimination when it's informal and ad hoc than when it's codified in some formal policy, so yeah, needless to say, don't expect the Saudis ever to admit that Jews sometimes are held to a different standard when applying for entry."

This is a story that needs to be watched and the airlines held to their word that there will not be discrimination against any passengers on their flights or the flights of any other members of the SkyTeam Alliance.

The article at Hot Air also points out:

"I regret singling out Delta yesterday, although I noted (twice) that United and presumably many other airlines also serve the Kingdom. This isn't a "Delta problem," it's a western-world problem shared by Delta insofar as we happily do business with the Saudis despite some truly nasty informal -- and formal -- discriminatory policies. (Try getting a church or synagogue built there.)"

I understand that businessmen need to make money and that overseas markets and expansion are important, but I truly think we need to take a good look at who we do business with.  Energy dependence has cost us much more than dollars, and our relationship with Saudi Arabia is one example of that.

The goal of the war in Afghanistan as stated by President Obama is to reach a place where the Afghans can defend their country against a Taliban takeover and move forward as a democracy.  It sounds really good, but in a article posted in the National Review Online yesterday, Andrew McCarthy lists a few problems with the basic concept.

Mr. McCarthy cites the case of Pfc. Nasser Abdo, a Muslim American soldier who refused to deploy to Afghanistan. Heeding the admonitions of CAIR and other Muslim Brotherhood operatives, the Pentagon accepted the claim that sharia forbids Muslims from assisting infidels in a war against Muslim forces in an Islamic land.  Pfc Abdo has been granted "conscientious objector" status on his claim that sharia forbids Muslims from assisting infidels in a war against Muslim forces in an Islamic land. 

Mr. McCarthy points out:

"News Flash One: The war in Afghanistan, an Islamic land, is a war waged by infidels (that would be us) against Muslim forces -- the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, etc.

"News Flash Two: The operating theory of the American counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy in Afghanistan is that the hearts and minds of the population of this tribal sharia society will side with us non-Muslims in a war against their fellow Muslims, most of whom are also their fellow Afghans."

We are going to ask Muslims to go against sharia law (parts of which have been written into their country's constitution) and prevent the Taliban (fellow Muslims) from again taking over Afghanistan.  Right.

Mr. McCarthy further points out:

"There's just one problem with it. Okay, there's a ton of problems, but let's get to the big one: If we acknowledge that sharia is a valid reason not to send an American Muslim to fight against his fellow Muslims in Afghanistan, what on earth makes us think the Afghan Muslims are going to fight their fellow Afghan Muslims in furtherance of American national-security interests?"

I don't even have a clue what the right answer is here.  I think we need to follow our own example of Germany and Japan and win the war, then partially redo the culture to bring Afghanistan into the 21st century.  However, if our great friends the Saudis won't even let women drive in their country and have no problem with that, I think changing the culture in any way may not be possible.  I wonder if it would be better just to make it known that any terrorist attack on the United States or any of its assets or people abroad will be met with unbelievable force and would be a really bad idea.

Yesterday the U. K. Telegraph posted an article on President Obama's speech last week on his plans for the war in Afghanistan.  The article pointed out that the President was ignoring the advice of his generals in order to do bring home the troops before the 2012 election.  What the withdrawal timetable spelled out by President Obama means is that we will not have the full number of forces in Afghanistan during this fighting season and we will have a very limited number of troops there in the second half of the next fighting season.  President Obama preivously committed in 2009 to remain for two Afghan fighting seasons.  I believe he has broken faith with his generals, America's allies who are helping us in this effort, and the Afghan people. 

The sad part of this is that many of the Republican candidates for President have signed on to this plan.  I think we are endangering our troops by drawing down their numbers prematurely.  We have a military comprised of awesome people, I hope they will be able to perform the miracle that will be needed to make this plan work.

This chart is from a Power Line article posted today.  As you can see, our recovery from the current recession does not quite look like the recoveries from prior recessions. 

 

 

 

The article further points out:

"Meanwhile, if you want to see where there is real job growth occurring, forget "green" jobs. Turns out old-fashioned "brown jobs" are where the action is. Nine of the 11 fastest-growing job sectors right now are drilling-related. Forget red and blue states in the next election. The real divide might be between fossil fuels states and the states still trying to break wind for their energy and economy."

It's time to drill, baby, drill.  The only way that is going to happen is if America votes Republican in 2012.

This is a link to an amazing You Tube video.  Please click on it and watch the video.

Fox Business reported yesterday that, "An estimated 90,000 people living in 350 ciites and towns across the country got nearly $400 million in taxpayer-funded crop subsidies last year..."

The Environmental Working Group, working with a Senate Agricultural committee to review farm spending, released the data.  Farm subsidies began in the Great Depression and were instituted to help struggling farmers keep their farms. 

The article further reports:

"But the group says an estimated $394 million in farm subsidies have been given to "absentee land owners and investors living in every major American city."

"It adds that "in 2010, 7,767 residents of just five Texas cities - Lubbock, Amarillo, Austin, San Angelo and Corpus Christi - collected $61,748,945 in taxpayer-funded subsidies. Residents of Lubbock booked $24,839,154 in payments, putting it at the top of cities with 100,000+ populations that are home to farm subsidy recipients," the watchdog group said in a statement."

Meanwhile, Victor Davis Hanson asked in the New York Post yesterday:

"Net farm income is expected in 2011 to reach its highest levels in more than three decades, as a rapidly growing and food-short world increasingly looks to the United States to provide it everything from soybeans and wheat to beef and fruit. Yet the department this year will give a record $20 billion in various crop "supports" to the nation's wealthiest farmers -- with the richest 10 percent receiving over 70 percent.If farmers on their own are making handsome profits, why, with a $1.6 trillion annual federal deficit, is the USDA borrowing unprecedented amounts to subsidize them?"

 

What in the world is the government doing?  It seems to me that before we talk about cutting entitlements, we need to talk about basic wasteful and unnecessary spending.  Why in the world would we even consider raising the debt ceiling when the government is not even spending the tax money it receives wisely?  Getting money from the government has become a racket.  It's time for it to end.

Today Newsbusters posted a transcript from an interview done on C-SPAN of Representative Keith Ellison, Democrat of Minnesota.  When the subject turned to Michele Bachmann. Representative Ellison repeated the normal liberal Democrat talking points--I support equality for everyone, prosperity for the working class, freedom for everyone, economic policies that give everyone a chance, etc.  He then summarized his statement by saying:

"I think on those things Michele and I don't agree.  Probably, down the line, she would probably say no to everything I just said.  But I believe in liberty and justice for all, no exceptions, you know, everybody, all religions, all colors, all faiths."

The interviewer, Peter Slen, host of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, then moved on to the next subject.  It is news to me that Michele Bachmann does not stand for liberty and justice for all.  I was under the distinct impression that she started the Tea Party Caucus in order to further those exact goals.  I think what she opposes is government interference in the everyday lives of Americans, and the redistribution of weath that this administration is currently attempting.  It's a shame the interviewer did not challenge the statement that Michele Bachmann is against liberty and justice for all.  This is the kind of sloppy interview that gives the mainstream media a bad name.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about the move by Al Qaeda to rebrand itself to make itself more popular.  Evidently the documents seized when Osama bin Laden was captured show that this was something on his mind.  There are a lot of really bad jokes that come to mind when you read the first sentence of this article, but this is a serious matter that could have major repercussions in the Middle East. 

As much as I would like to say that the courage and bravery of the American soldier has been totally responsible for the decline of Al Qaeda, that is only part of the story.  The article at Power Line points out:

"...When al Qaeda issued a call for terrorists from around the world to go to Iraq and fight, some argued that this broadening of the war showed the folly of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, others that it offered an opportunity for a decisive victory over al Qaeda. What actually happened was that foreign terrorists were so brutal and indiscriminate in their mass murder that they decisively alienated not just the Iraqi population generally, but leaders of what had been the Sunni resistance to American occupation. Many of those Sunni leaders joined forces with us and our allies, which allowed the eventual pacification of the country. Meanwhile, as bin Laden conceded, the same brutality that alienated Iraqis put off other Muslims around the world. This, combined with the fact that al Qaeda was defeated in Iraq, thereby proving to be the weak horse rather than the strong one, probably did play a key role in the continuing decline of that organization."

This is an interesting observation for a number of reasons.  Remember the Democrat Congressmen and Congresswomen who screamed that the war in Iraq was not related to Al Qaeda or that Al Qaeda was not in Iraq?  Also keep in mind that the Sunni awakening played a large role in the success of the military surge in Iraq.  The other part of the success of the surge was the tenacity of President Bush, who was willing to go against public opinion to get the job done.  Unfortunately, we currently have a president who would not be willing to do that.

I am glad that we managed to kill bin Laden before he had a chance to launch his public relations campaign.  I am not sure it would have been successful, but the thought of having to write "Monotheism and Jihad Group" every time I want to say Al Qaeda makes my head hurt.

National Review posted an article yesterday about the problems with the deficit negotiations that Vice-President Biden is overseeing between the Republicans and Democrats.  House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) walked out of those negotiations yesterday stating that the talks had repeated stalled over the Democrats demand that taxes be raised in order to deal with the deficit. 

The article reports:

"House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) told reporters he sympathized with Cantor's decision. "I know the frustration that he feels when Democrat members continue to want to bring tax hikes into this conversation and insist that we've got to raise taxes on the American people," he said at weekly press briefing. "A tax hike cannot pass the U.S. House of Representatives. It's not just a bad idea; it doesn't have the votes, and it can't happen. . . . The American people don't want us to raise taxes.""

I really don't understand the strategy of the Democrats on this.  The 2010 elections revealed an involved electorate willing to work for lower taxes and smaller government.  I realize that these are not popular concepts with the current Administration and its buddies in Congress, but they are, in fact, the desire of the majority of Americans.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.), representing the Republican Senators in the negotiations, has also walked out of the negotiations. 

The article points out the recent history of tax hikes in Congress:

"Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) reiterated his party's position that tax hikes are "a poison pill" to any potential deal to reduce the deficit. "We know that a tax hike would never make it through Congress," he said. "Not because of Republican opposition -- but because of Republican and Democratic opposition. We've already had the votes to prove it.""

Unfortunately, we have entered the 'silly season' at a time that is critical in the survival of our nation.  If we don't get our spending under control, we will rapidly become a third-world country.  Hopefully, we have enough grown-ups in Congress to prevent this.

The internet posted a few articles yesterday and today about President Obama's decision to release 30 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) this month.  The common sense question either in the articles or the comments goes something like this:  "Why are we releasing the oil from the SPR while blocking domestic oil production?"

Fox News posted an article yesterday saying:

"Rather than draw down on these limited reserves, Obama ought to speed up the red-tape-entangled permitting process for offshore drilling projects at home and increase lease sales to domestic reserves.  In fact, if the president truly valued the American consumer and domestic energy security, he would never have enacted his job-crushing, energy-killing drilling moratorium in the Gulf last year--followed by a refusal to grant permits.

"According to the House Natural Resources Committee, the ban cost us 900,000 barrels of domestically produced oil every day--a total of about 135 million barrels, more than four times the amount the president is now sacrificing a security asset in order to tap.  In this case it's Obama's Gulf 'permitorium' that constituted the real supply disruption."

John Hinderaker at Power Line observes:

"No one pretends that this is the intended use of the strategic reserve--the administration is just trying to get past the Fourth of July without too much political fallout from gas prices--nor does anyone think that a one-time influx of oil will have any long-term impact on energy costs. Still, the administration's action is revealing: if you want to keep prices down, what do you do? You increase supply.

"That being the case, why has the Democratic Party done everything in its power for more than 30 years to suppress domestic production of oil? Let's consider some sources of petroleum that the Democrats have blocked. ANWR is estimated to have the capacity to produce 1,000,000 barrels per day. Currently, around 1.5 million barrels per day are produced in the Gulf of Mexico; if the Obama administration would stop blocking permits and allow that production to increase by only 20 percent, that would be 300,000 barrels per day. Then there is the Keystone pipeline. The administration would like to block its construction, which would prevent 900,000 barrels per day from entering the U.S. If it is a good idea to restrain prices by a one-time release of 30 million barrels, why isn't it a really great idea to open up production that would add more than twice that amount every month, indefinitely?"

The Daily Caller observes:

"Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the U. S. Chamber of Commerce's Energy Institute, said in a statement:  "Unrest in the Middle East is likely to continue for quite some time, so a temporary increase in supply is not a substitute for a long-term fix.  Our reserve is intended to address true emergencies, not politically inconvenient high prices."

The move to release oil from the SPR is political and not good for national security.  Hopefully the American voters will see through the gamesmanship.

Examiner.com posted an article yesterday about the new rules for dealing with illegal aliens just released in a memo from the Obama administration.  This is the link to the memo.  The memo makes some changes in enforcement that reflect the goals of the "Dream Act," which was defeated by Congress.

The article reports:

"On Wednesday, ICE Union president Chris Crane told PRNewswire: "Any American concerned about immigration needs to brace themselves for what's coming.  This is just one of many new ICE policies in queue aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in the United States.  Unable to pass its immigration agenda through legislation, the Administration is now implementing it through agency policy.""

The article further reports:

"Crane continued: "ICE and the Administration have excluded our unions and our agents from the entire process of developing policies, it was all kept secret from us, we found out from the newspapers.  ICE worked hand-in-hand with immigrants rights groups, but excluded its own officers.""

There is additional bad news:

""Our officers are already under orders not to make arrests or even talk to foreign nationals in most cases unless another agency has already arrested them; you won't find that written in any public ICE policy," Crane said."

This is disturbing.  President Obama needs the Hispanic vote if he has any chance of being re-elected in 2012.  He is willing to put his political interests over the well-being of the country.  Congress needs to step up to the plate and investigate these policies.  Otherwise we are in danger to being overrun with people who come here illegally and live off the largess of the American taxpayer. 

 

 

 

Massachusetts is an interesting state culturally and politically.  Like any other state, there are places in Massachusetts that the average person just stays away from because those places have their own rules and their own customs.  One of those places was South Boston during the 25-year reign of  Whitey Bulger and Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi.  They led the Winter Hill Gang, which ran loansharking, gambling and drug rackets in the Boston area. U.S. Attorney Donald K. Stern said in 2000 that the two were "responsible for a reign of intimidation and murder that spanned 25 years."

An article at Yahoo News tells some of the details of the saga of Whitey Bulger.  Whitey's brother, William, was one of the most powerful politicians in the state, leading the Massachusetts Senate for 17 years and later serving as president of the University of Massachusetts. He resigned the post in 2003 under political pressure.

The story also relates:

"At the same time he was boss of the Winter Hill Gang, South Boston's murderous Irish mob, Bulger was an FBI informant, supplying information about the rival New England Mafia. But he fled in January 1995 when a retired agent tipped him off that he was about to be indicted.

"That set off a major scandal at the FBI, which was found to have an overly cozy relationship with its underworld informants in Boston, protecting mob figures for decades and allowing them to commit murders as long as they were supplying useful information."

I am sure there will be speculation on how Whitey Bulger stayed hidden for so long.  There is probably a made-for-tv movie in process as I write this.  However, I would just like to add that even though Whitey is now 81, it is good to see him brought to justice.

 

Heritage.org posted an article today about President Obama's plan for troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. 

The Heritage Foundations' Lisa Curtis stated:

"It is short-sighted to use bin Laden's death as justification for hastening the U.S. troop draw down in Afghanistan.  Announcing rapid withdrawal of U.S. forces will likely bolster the morale of the Taliban and encourage them to stick with the fight.  Since al-Qaeda has not yet dissolved as an organization and its relationship with the Taliban remains strong, reducing military pressure on the Taliban in Afghanistan could benefit al-Qaeda and provide it a lifeline at a critical juncture in the fight against terrorism.

"The withdrawal plan will signal to both our Afghan allies and enemy forces that the U.S. is more committed to withdrawing its forces than the long-term goal of stabilizing the country. The U.S. made a grave error in turning its back on Afghanistan after the Soviets departed in 1989. President Obama's speech will stoke fears that the U.S. is getting ready to repeat a similar mistake."

The Daily Caller also posted its analysis of the President's plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

The Daily Caller reports:

"Obama's retreat from Afghanistan before the Islamic Taliban is defeated is militarily risky, because it may embolden Taliban attackers and fracture the central's government shaky coalition. If additional U.S. troops are killed, or the country is split by war in the fall before the 2012 election, Republicans will likely pin the blame on the president.

"Already, many Afghans have begun maneuvering for advantage in a post-American Afghanistan. An alliance of groups from Northern Afghanistan -- "the Coalition for Change and Hope" -- has openly split with Karzai's government and begun to seek alliances with Southern anti-Taliban tribal leaders.

""This spits and realignments are unsurprising, said Ahmad Majidyar, a senior research at the American Enterprise Institute, "Because many leaders and communities were killed or wrecked in the civil-war that followed the retreat of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. A civil-war can be avoided only if the U.S acts as a honest broker and strong backer in the politically diverse country.""

After the Americans abandoned Afghanistan in the late 1980's, it took the Taliban three years to establish control.  The challenge in Afghanistan as American troops leave in the next two years is that history will repeat itself. 

Like many Americans, I am tired of being at war.  However, my being tired does not change the fact that there are evil people in the world who do not support freedom and see America as a target.  We can choose to deal with that fact or we can choose to ignore it.  I fear that President Obama's plan for Afghanistan is based on politics--not military strategy.  I truly feel that we are planning to stop taking our medicine before the infection is cleared up.

As Obamacare moves through the courts, as exemptions from Obamacare come under scrutiny, and the implementation of Obamacare approaches, there seem to be more problems with the legislature.  On Tuesday, Jennifer Rubin posted an article at the Washington Post about the latest problem with Obamacare.

Ms. Rubin cites an Associated Press report:

"President Barack Obama's health care law would let several million middle-class people get nearly free insurance meant for the poor, a twist government number crunchers say they discovered only after the complex bill was signed.

"The change would affect early retirees: A married couple could have an annual income of about $64,000 and still get Medicaid, said officials who make long-range cost estimates for the Health and Human Services department.

"Up to 3 million people could qualify for Medicaid in 2014 as a result of the anomaly. That's because, in a major change from today, most of their Social Security benefits would no longer be counted as income for determining eligibility."

Needless to say, this would bankrupt the states and Medicaid.  Obviously this is another reason for "repeal and replace."  Ms. Rubin asks how such a flawed piece of legislature ever got through Congress.  She states that it was the result of the rush to do something about healthcare--anything. 

It's time for lawmakers in Washington to admit that they made a serious error in judgment when they passed Obamacare.  If the current Congress will not repeal and replace, it's time to elect a Congress than will.

Sky News is reporting today that Geert Wilders has been cleared of hate speech charges in the Netherlands.  Mr. Wilders had previously stated that Islam was a violent religion and called for a halt to Muslim immigration into the Netherlands.  He also called for banning the Koran in the Netherlands.  After he made those statements, he was put under police protection due to death threats.  There seems to be a bit of irony in that statement--if Islam was not a violent religion, why did he need police protection after criticizing it?

Mr. Wilders produced a film called "Fitna" in 2008 which was shown on various internet websites.  The film showed a connection between some of the terrorism committed by Muslims and verses in the Koran which condoned the killing of infidels.

There are a few things to keep in mind about this case.  According to Reliance of the Traveler (the manual of Muslim jurisprudence), the definition of slander (ghiba) is "to mention anything concerning a person that he would dislike."  Truth is not a part of the discussion--the rule on slander is simply whether or not the person hearing what is said approves of the remarks.  Obviously this concept is not compatible with free speech.

Mr. Wilders' acquittal is a victory for free speech .  The goal of radical Islam is a world-wide caliphate.  If we are not free to talk about the goal of the terrorists, how will we ever end terrorism?

Posted on Facebook by one of my sons-in-law:

 

 

I love it!!

If you read this blog on a regular basis, you understand that I am very skeptical about the 'Arab Spring.'  I have listened to enough people who have extensive backgrounds in Islamic studies to understand that democracy and Islam are not compatible.  However, many of the major media has not yet figured that out, so we continually have optimistic articles about Muslim nations moving toward freedom and human rights.  I remain skeptical.

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review yesterday stating his skepticism about King Mohammed VI's new constitution for Morocco.  Jennifer Rubin posted an extremely optimistic article in the Washington Post on Monday about the new constitution.  Mr. McCarthy states that he is not quite ready to break out the champagne. 

Mr. McCarthy points out:

"Morocco is not just a "Muslim country" in the cultural sense. It is a country proudly adherent to sharia law. Since 1969, Morocco has been a member of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, whose Islamic member states proclaimed, in 1990, the "Declaration of Human Rights in Islam." The rationale for this proclamation -- which is also known as the "Cairo Declaration" -- is that the signatory nations do not accept the concept of "human rights" as it is understood in the West and outlined in such instruments as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which the Cairo Declaration is a rebuttal."

Can you have democracy in a country where it is illegal to criticize Islam or Sharia Law?  Can you have human rights when women are only allowed the rights given to them under Sharia Law? 

Mr. McCarthy further points out:

"Similarly, "freedom to practice religion" comes with the severe restrictions sharia imposes on non-Muslims. Yes, they are "free" to practice their religion in the sense that they are not compelled to convert to Islam (Article 10 makes that explicit), but there are considerable legal and financial disadvantages to being a non-Muslim in a sharia state. And "freedom of speech" does not include the freedom to utter statements that cast Islam in a poor light or that sow discord among the ummah -- regardless of whether those statements are true."

It is my wish that someday the people in the Middle East will be free and have true human rights.  Right now the only country where that is true is Israel.  Until the people under Islamic dictatorships realize the slavery they are in and rise up against it, I don't see much hope for the 'Arab Spring.'  However, it would be nice to see freedom reign in the Middle East.

Today's Daily Caller posted a story stating that Frederick Hill, a spokesman for House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, has told the Daily Caller that the investigations into the Justice Departments Gunrunner Project are expected to lead to people higher than acting ATF director Kenneth Melson.

Director Kenneth Melson is expected to resign in the next few days because of the findings of the Congressional investigation.  The article reports:

""The investigations are far from over," Hill told TheDC. "It's quite certain that Kenneth Melson was not the principal architect of this plan nor was he the only high-ranking official who knew about and authorized this operation.""

The investigation is expected to continue even after the resignation of Director Melson.  The article concludes:

"Former El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) director Phil Jordan said he thinks this scandal goes as high as Attorney General Eric Holder. From his decades of law enforcement experience working with Washington-based Justice Department officials, Jordan said he's sure this kind of program would have needed approval from either the Attorney General or one of his direct deputies."

If this program was authorized by the Justice Department, then it is time for a new Attorney General.  If the charges that this program was part of a gun-control agenda are true, then we need a whole new administration.  2012 can't come quickly enough.

I don't have enough of a scientific background to understand fully what this story is about, but the premise of the story is important, so I wanted to post an article on it.

Today, the American Thinker posted a story about the flooding that has taken place in the midwest this year.  The premise of the article is that the flooding was avoidable.  Unfortunately this premise is not out of line.  The devastation we saw in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina could be partially traced to the Army Corps of Engineers being prevented from placing a floodgate system on Lake Pontchartrain to prevent the kind of flooding that occurred after the hurricane.

According to Discover The Networks:

"In 1977, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) was slated to launch its Lake Pontchartrain and Vicinity Hurricane Barrier Project, which called for the construction of levees at two strategic locations -- the Rigolets and Chef Menteur passes -- to prevent massive storms on the Gulf of Mexico from causing Lake Pontchartrain to flood the city of New Orleans (which is below sea level). A state environmentalist group known as Save Our WetLands (SOWL) believed that these proposed levees would negatively affect the area surrounding Lake Pontchartrain. Further, the organization was convinced that the construction of the levees would be merely the first step in a malicious plan to drain Lake Pontchartrain entirely and open the area to capitalist investment, which it regarded as a de facto evil. Thus SOWL filed a lawsuit to prevent the ACE from building the fortifications. 
 
"On December 30, 1977, U.S. District Judge Charles Schwartz, Jr. ruled in behalf of SOWL by issuing an injunction demanding that the Corps of Engineers draw up a second environmental-impact statement, three years after the Corps had submitted the first one. Ultimately, the project was aborted in favor of a campaign whereby the government would merely build up existing levees."

Well, here we are again.  The American Thinker article reports:

"Some sixty years ago, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) began the process of taming the Missouri by constructing a series of six dams.  The idea was simple: massive dams at the top moderating flow to the smaller dams below, generating electricity while providing desperately needed control of the river's devastating floods."

This program was a success.  However, during the Clinton Administration, the priorities of the program changed from flood control, facilitation of commercial traffic, and recreation to habitat restoration, wetlands preservation, and culturally sensitive and sustainable biodiversity.  The bottom line here is that someone in Washington decided that animals were more importatnt than people and more important than the farms that feed the American people.

The article at the American Thinker further reports:

"The Corps began to utilize the dam system to mimic the previous flow cycles of the original river, holding back large amounts of water upstream during the winter and early spring in order to release them rapidly as a "spring pulse."  The water flows would then be restricted to facilitate a summer drawdown of stream levels.  This new policy was highly disruptive to barge traffic and caused frequent localized flooding, but a multi-year drought masked the full impact of the dangerous risks the Corps was taking.

"This year, despite more than double the usual amount of mountain and high plains snowpack (and the ever-present risk of strong spring storms), the true believers in the Corps have persisted in following the revised MWCM, recklessly endangering millions of residents downstream." 

The flooding in the midwest this year was a man-made disaster.  The article at the American Thinker gives the details on how much water was actually released and its impact.  The bottom line here is simple:  we need sanity in Washington--we don't seem to have it right now.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to preserve the environment.  There is something very wrong about wanting to kill people to do it.

"I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set I go into the other room and read a book." ~ Groucho Marx

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story about the ongoing investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. 

The article reports on how Fast and Furious worked:

"Under DOJ's new strategy, gun shop owners would be given the names of suspected straw purchasers and would report to ATF the serial numbers of guns that they sold to those purchasers. However, the purchasers themselves were not kept under surveillance and no effort was made to stop them from transferring the guns to Mexican drug gangs. On the contrary, such transfers were the hoped-for result, on the theory that identifying the guns when they later turned up at crime scenes in Mexico or on the U.S. side of the border would "create a 'nexus' between the drug cartels and the straw purchasers." Under this theory, approximately 2,000 AK-47s and other weapons were allowed to pass from known straw purchasers into the hands of the drug cartels."

Many of the ATF agents complained about the policy, stating that it would put agents in greater danger and increase violence among the drug cartels.  The program allowed the weapons to be taken into Mexico without interdiction, and surveillance efforts stopped at the Mexican border.  There is no way that this program was going to succeed as a law enforcement operation.  So what was the program about?  Why were we allowing the sale of weapons to people buying them for known drug cartels?

Bob Owens at Pajamas Media has a theory:

"At the same time in 2009 that federal law enforcement agencies (the ATF, the DOJ, and presumably Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security) were creating the operation that led to the executive branch being the largest gun smuggler in the Southwest, the president's team was crafting the rhetoric to sell the crisis they were creating.

"On television, in various news outlets, and even in a joint appearance with Mexican President Felipe Calderon, Obama pushed the 90 percent lie, implying that 90% of the guns recovered in Mexican cartel violence came from U.S. gun shops.

"At the same time they were damning gun dealers in public, the administration was secretly forcing them to provide weapons to the cartels, by the armful and without oversight. More than one gun industry insider suggests that the administration extorted cooperation and silence from these gun shops. As the ATF has the power to summarily shut dealers down for the most minor of offenses, that is very, very possible."

In March 2009, CBS News quoted Hillary Clinton:

"Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, on a visit to Mexico, said Wednesday that America's inability to prevent weapons being smuggled across the border is causing the deaths of Mexican police officers, soldiers and civilians."

The plan was to shut down the gun dealers claiming that it was necessary to protect Mexican police officers, soldiers and civilians. 

Pajamas Media concludes:

"The Department of Justice claims that their inspector general will investigate Gunwalker, but it appears obvious to the very agents that brought this scandal into the open that they have a clear conflict of interest. There are already calls for a special prosecutor to investigate Gunwalker.

"Considering the arming of narco-terrorist gangs, the destabilizing geopolitical effect on Mexico, the foreign policy ramifications, and the possibility of extrajudicial and criminal activity at the highest levels of the executive branch, a special prosecutor should be just one avenue of investigation. This could possibly lead to prison for senior administration officials and an indictment against President Barack Obama himself."

I suspect there will be more information to come about Operation Fast and Furious.  Thanks to Darrell Issa and the Congressional Oversight Committee, the Second Amendment is still intact.

I need to say up front that I don't disagree with what the Pentagon is doing in regard to military pay in Libya, I just think it contradicts what the President is saying.

Yesterday, Hot Air reported that the Department of Defense is paying "imminent danger pay" to service members who fly planes over Libya or serve on ships within 110 nautical miles of its shores. 

Hot Air reports:

"This is Obama's big argument for why the War Powers Act shouldn't apply to Libya, of course. No American is in any serious danger, therefore there aren't really "hostilities" going on, therefore there's no need for Congress to formally authorize the mission."

The President can't have it both ways--either we are at war or we are not.  The article points out that two of the lawyers from the Pentagon have advised President Obama that the military actions in Libya do actually fall under the War Powers Act. 

This is not a minor issue.  What is at stake here is whether or not the President is accountable to Congress on the issue of declaring war.  The media has pretty much ignored this story, but depending on the actions of Congress, we may not have heard the last of this issue.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about a statement made by National Public Radio host John Hockenberry.  Mr. Hockenberry stated, "The Taliban has never been an enemy of the United States. They don't love us in Afghanistan, but they're not sending planes over to New York or to the Pentagon and it seems to me much more broadly that the debate needs to happen is what is the sort of multi-state strategy for dealing with rogue nations of all kinds. Yemen is about to fall apart. You've got Somalia problems. The idea that terrorists just go to Afghanistan and launch weapons at the United States it seems in 2011 is an absurdity."

I realize that Al Qaeda sent the planes on September 11, 2001, but they were allowed to operate freely under the Taliban government.  There was a mutual animosity toward western freedom.  To ignore the role the Taliban played in facilitating September 11 is to rewrite history.  The Taliban were part of a repressive government supporting the idea of a world-wide caliphate.  They are the enemies of all democracies, including America.  If they are allowed to regain power in Afghanistan, we can expect a repeat of September 11 in the not-too-distant future.

On June 13, The Miami Herald posted a story about a law recently passed in Texas that would allow people in the state to continue to use incandescent bulbs after 2014.  The 2007 Energy Independence Act begins phasing out incandescent bulbs next year.  Oddly enough, the company that is moving forward to meet the demand for flourescent bulbs is General Electric, the favored child of the Obama Administration (rightwinggranny.com).

The law in Texas would allow incandescent bulbs to be manufactured and sold in Texas for use in Texas, therefore not being subject to federal regulation.  The compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs are expensive, do not provide as much light, and present an environmental hazard if broken. 

The article points out:

"The federal act doesn't ban incandescent light bulbs, but it creates new standards for them, such as requiring 100-watt bulbs to be 25 percent more efficient.  After that, similar changes will go into effect for 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs.  The goal is to make the bulbs more energy efficient because much of the traditional bulbs' energy leaves the bulb as heat rather than as light.

"The act requires the changes or essentially removes incandescent light bulbs from the market by 2014, leaving consumers to mostly use flourescent bulbs, which some say are more energy efficient and others say are just more expensive."

The article also reports that Osram Sylvania stated that it has developed a more efficient incandescant bulb that will meet the new federal requirements.  Free enterprise is alive and well in America!

I believe that telling Americans what kind of light bulbs they can buy is government overreach. There is a move in Congress to repeal the 2007 Energy Independence Act, but I would not expect it to go anywhere with a Democrat Senate and a Democrat in the White House. 

President Obama wants to be a two-term President.  He says it's not important to him, but I strongly suspect it is.  Winning a second term is going to be something of a challenge for President Obama based on the current state of the economy and the high unemployment numbers.  The question then becomes, "How can President Obama win with the current economy?"  The answer is simple--destroy the competition to the point where the economy is irrelevant. 

The current example of this is the EPA's attack on Texas.  Rick Perry is emerging as a possible presidential candidate.  One of the issues he will run on will be the Texas economy.  The Texas economy is a result of a number of conscious decisions--no personal income tax, tort reform that discouraged frivolous lawsuits--both medical and otherwise, and an aggressive development of the state's natural energy.  These policies have resulted in a major migration of businesses from other states into Texas.  Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of scandal to be found on Rick Perry as a candidate, the Obama administration will use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to attack the prosperity and growth of the State of Texas.  You think I'm kidding.  Watch.

An article at Hot Air reports that:

 "...And in spite of being by far the largest electric power producer of the 50 states, and heavily reliant on coal, Texas has been steadily reducing its emissions of the EPS's least-favored compounds from coal combustion (e.g., sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide).  Its emissions of NOx and SO2 are substantially lower than the national average; Texas is ranked the 11th lowest in NOx emissions (.098 lb/mmBtu in 2009, versus a national average of .159 lb/mmBtu), and 24th in SO2 (.309 lb/mmBtu in 2009 versus a national average of .458 lb/mmBtu)."

However, that has not stopped the EPA from attacking the state.   In January 2010, the EPA decided that the Texas air-permit program was invalid and every facility in the state operating under that permit would have to be re-permitted.  The argument was that Texas was measuring the pollution from the entire facility--the EPA wanted separate measurements from every area of the facility.  Obviously this will be more expensive with very questionable results.  The second aspect of the attack on Texas is the war on coal.  The Texas Public Policy Foundation submitted a report to Congress in March saying that the new EPA regulations will shut down 5700 MW of electrical generating capacity--about one-twelfth of peak demand.  The new regulations also make no allowance for increased energy demands in the State of Texas in the coming years.  The third attack on Texas energy is in the area of natural gas.  Please follow the link above to Hot Air to read the details on this.  It is an amazing story.

The problem here is the use of a government agency for political purposes.  I am sure this instance of the EPA being used politically is not new, but it needs to be stopped in its tracks.  The article lists a group of states that support the EPA in this action.  Oddly enough, the list includes many of the states with the largest deficits, highest unemployment, highest taxes, etc.  If the states are the laboratories for the federal government, we need to pay more attention to Texas and less attention to Washington and the EPA.

This article is based on three articles--one in USA Today, one in the New York Post, and one at th website of KPHO.com.  It seems that one of the advantages of serving in Congress is a fantastic pension that you don't have to contribute to.  This is another example of those who make the laws making sure their own interests come first.

USA Today reports:

"Weiner announced his resignation Thursday amid an embarrassing online sex scandal, but he still hasn't officially submitted his papers to House Speaker John Boehner that he's leaving."

The New York Post reports:

"Every day Weiner puts off his official departure date enlarges his congressional pension.  But so far no one has pushed for Weiner to clear out of the Capitol."

KPHO reports:

"Weiner, 46, will have the option to take discounted payments of about $35,000 a year when he turns 56 or he can wait another six years and get about $46,000.

"Compare that to a private citizen contributing $1,000 a month to their 401K plan with a $3,000 company match over the same period., and it would add up to $231,000, less than 1/5 of what Weiner will receive."

Our founding fathers envisioned Congress as a place where a citizen would serve his country for a short period of time and then return to the private sector to live under the laws he had passed.  Somehow selfishness has taken over where patriotism was needed.

I am posting this story with more questions than answers.  The story itself is simple.  CNS News is reporting that NBC has apologized for editing out "under God" and "indivisible" in its piece showing school children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

Announcer Dan Hicks told viewers, "We began our coverage of this final round just about three hours ago, and when we did it was our intent to begin the coverage of this U.S. Open championship with a feature that captured the patriotism of our national championship being held in our nation's capital for the third time.  Regrettably, a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance that was in that feature was edited out. It was not done to upset anyone, and we'd like to apologize to those of you who were offended by it."

My questions are simple.  Why would anyone take the time to edit those words our of the Pledge?  Did NBC think that Americans wouldn't notice?  Does this matter?  Is it a call to pay closer attention to anything we see on network television?

New Jersey.com posted an aritlce today about the death of Clarence Clemons yesterday.  Mr. Clemons was an amazing musician and he will be greatly missed. 

Clarence Clemons was 69 and died due to complications from the stroke he suffered on June 12. 

The article reports:

""Clarence Clemons represented the soul and spirit of New Jersey," said Gov. Chris Christie, in a statement. "His partnership with Bruce Springsteen and the rest of the E Street Band brought great pride to our state and joy to every fan of this music around the world.

""On a personal note, when I heard about the Big Man's passing on Saturday night, I was struck with an overwhelming feeling that the days of my youth were now finally over.""

I spent my teenage years in New Jersey at a time when Asbury Park was still a place you took the family for a seaside dinner.  The music scene had not yet developed, and the boardwalk was a place of rides and pinball machines.  In his music, Bruce Springsteen captured the changes that took place on the New Jersey shore in the 1970's, and Clarence Clemons was an important part of that music. 

The article concludes:

"Life does go on, and the band may live to rock another day. But it would be a different band -- with the same name, maybe, but a different sound, and a different personality.

"The E Street Band may eventually present joyful shows again. But there will be an inescapable sadness whenever your eyes wander to the part of the stage where Clemons always stood. The Big Man's stamp was simply that big."

Clarence Clemons, you will be sorely missed.  Rest in peace.

Today is Father's Day, so I am going to share a memory of my father that actually relates to the news story that will follow.  One of the joys of my father's later years was taking my husband and I and our three daughters to a Pawtucket Red Sox game.  Dad loved baseball and he was thrilled to see that all three of our daughters played softball and understood the game of baseball.  They always brought their gloves to the ballpark just in case an errant foul ball came their way.  My daughters still remember "Honey"(as they called him) taking us all to a ball game.  At one of these games when he was about seventy-some years old, he got up and went to the refreshment stand.  He came back with a beer and a huge grin.  All patrons of the ballpark had to show identification to buy beer, and he had been carded!  He was thrilled.  It made his day.

Fast forward to Jesse Jackson at a conference for his social justice organization, the Rainbow PUSH Coalition.  The Reverend Jackson stated, "Now governors and legislators in over 30 states are engaged in a radical rollback of our civil and voting rights,"   He was describing the laws passed by many states requiring that voters show photo identification to vote. 

Some of the things you need to show a photo identification for are:

buying alcohol

buying cigarettes

buying cough medicine

buying allergy medication

getting into an R-rated movie

boarding an airplane

You get the picture.  I have no statistics to back up what I am about to say, but I would guess that at least 85 percent of all Americans engage in at least one of these activities.  Being asked for photo identification is not a civil rights issue--it is a voter fraud issue. 

The article reports:

"The delegation of lawmakers at the 40th annual conference decried such bills, as well as budget cutbacks and early voting regulations, as thinly veiled political maneuvers aimed at weakening Democrats."

My question is simple, "Given the normal life events that require photo identification, why would requiring that identification to vote weaken Democrats?"  Don't Democrats support honest elections?

I wonder what all this speculation about the Republican Presidential candidate is about.  I realize that the Republicans need to choose a candidate--but now??!!  There is a part of me that says if the Republicans pick a frontrunner now, the liberal media will have more time to destroy that candidate and we will have four more years of President Obama.  I am not at all sure this country could survive four more years of President Obama.

Having said that, I have a few observations and articles to recommend.  Daniel Henninger at the Wall Street Journal posted an article on Thursday (unfortunately this is a subscription only article, so I will try to summarize it) talking about Texas Governor Rick Perry.  Governor Perry spoke Saturday at the Republican Leadership Conference.  The speech is posted at Breitbart TV in its entirety.  It is worth listening to for a lot of reasons.

Mr. Henninger points out a few basic facts in his Wall Street Journal article:

"The Federal Reserve Bank in Dallas recently estimated that since June 2009, Texas has produced about 37% of the net new jobs in the U.S. At The Journal's offices this week, Gov. Perry said a closer look puts the Texas new-jobs number closer to 48%. Whatever. It's an astounding feat."

The article further observes:

"...Without the details of the Texas economic boom, this is a normal candidacy. But the details are impressive. Texas is a zero income-tax state, and Mr. Perry gives the impression he'd die at the Alamo before allowing one. The state is historically business-friendly. I recall attending the 1992 GOP convention in Houston, visiting from New York, and feeling as if I were in a capitalist utopia. You could argue that many of the state's new companies are mainly fleeing intolerable hells, such as California. But Texas and Mr. Perry keep producing new welcome mats, notably the recent passage of a loser-pays tort-reform bill. Mr. Perry says Haley Barbour told him they'd need turnstiles on the border if that tort bill passed, and indeed the in-migration of doctors to Texas is significant."

There are three people that I would be happy to see on the Republican ticket in 2012.  Any two of them would make me very happy.  They are Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann.  Most of the other people running I could probably support, but much less enthusiastically.  My biggest fear is that in 2012, the media will pick the Republican candidate.  They will like this person until the actual campaign for President begins.  Then, they will turn on him and support Barack Obama.  That's exactly what they did with John McCain, and it worked.  I see no reason why they will not try that again.  It is up to the Republican primary voters to be aware of the media and its role in the election process and to make sure they do not allow the media to determine their candidate.  Otherwise we will have four more years of Barack Obama.

Meanwhile, I think the Republican primary voters need to take a good look at Governor Perry and what is happening in Texas.

Investors.com reported Friday that 73 Senators (Republicans, Democrats, and the two independents) voted to end both the ethanol tax credit and the tariff on imported ethanol.  This is a major move if for no other reason than Iowa (the Cornhusker State) is the site of the first presidential primary.  This will not be a popular move in Iowa, but it is a necessary move.

The article reports:

"The amendment not only would repeal the Volumetric Ethanol Excise Tax Credit that subsidizes ethanol producers, a favored industry unlike Big Oil, but also a 54-cent a gallon tariff on foreign ethanol from the likes of Brazil.

"According to the administration, oil from Brazil is good, but ethanol is not. Domestically produced ethanol is good but domestically produced oil is bad. Huh?"

The logic of this totally escapes me--and I make no claim to being logical. 

The article further points out:

"...the amendment does nothing to end the actual federal mandate specifying U.S. consumption of 36 billion gallons in "renewable fuels" each year until 2022. Without this mandate, the tariff and the tax credit, ethanol could not compete in the marketplace."

Theoretically the removal of the tax credit allows the free market to operate in the area of renewable energy.  We'll have to wait and see how that turns out.

Tax credits for ethanol and mandates requiring ethanol have a negative impact on world food prices:

"According to a report prepared by 10 international organizations, including the World Bank and five different arms of the U.N., such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Fund for Agricultural Development -- we're not talking right-wingers here -- increased bio-fuel mandates by governments could raise the price of coarse grains as much as 13%, oilseeds by 7% and vegetable oil 35% on average each year between 2013 and 2017."

It's time to put corn in our corn flakes and gas in our gas tanks.  This seems so simple until Washington starts passing laws.

On Monday the Center For Security Policy posted an article about the literature currently found in Mosques in America and the hope that the same literature would not be allowed in our prisons. 

The article reports:

"Such materials were used in a new peer-reviewed study published last week in the highly respected journal Middle East Quarterly (MEQ) as indicators of jihadist sentiment and proselytization in a random sample of 100 American mosques.  This study, which is entitled Shari'a and Violence in American Mosques, involved the collection of empirical data through repeated on-site investigations over several years.  It established that 81% of U.S. mosques had the cited materials on the premises. The study also found that in over 84% of the mosques surveyed, the imam recommended texts advocating violent jihad."

The article lists the texts cited in the study:

The seven texts featured in the MEQ analysis are illustrative of the body of hate-mongering, supremacist literature and films used by shariah-adherent Muslims to inculcate in targeted populations their call to violent jihad:

1. Riyad-us Saliheen (Gardens of the Righteous)
2. Jihad in Islam
3. Umdat al-Salik (The Reliance of the Traveller)
4. Tafhim al-Qur'an (The Meaning of the Qur'an)
5. Fiqh-us-Sunnah (The Book on Acts of Worship)
6. Tafsir Ibn Kathir
7. Ma'alim fi'l-Tariq (Milestones)

We have all heard the expression "You are known by the company you keep."  In this case, I think we can say "You are known by the books you read and promote." 

As Americans, we need to understand that the goal of many Muslims (not all) is to promote Sharia Law around the world and create a worldwide caliphate.  Although I believe radical Muslims are entitled to believe whatever they choose to believe, I do not believe they have the right to undermine the U. S. Constitution within the United States prison system. 

I applaud the efforts of Representative King to raise awareness on the issue of radicalization in our prisons.  Please read the entire article at the Center for Security Policy for a list of the witnesses that will be called and further details on the MEQ study.

Hot Air reported Wednesday on the battle between Congress and the White House over the War Powers Resolution and the "war" in Libya. 

The article quotes:

""We are not saying the president can take the country into war on his own," Mr. Koh (State Department legal adviser Harold Koh) said. "We are not saying the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional or should be scrapped, or that we can refuse to consult Congress. We are saying the limited nature of this particular mission is not the kind of 'hostilities' envisioned by the War Powers Resolution.""

What he is saying here is that the application of the War Powers Resolution is determined by how deeply involved we are in a war--not by the fact that we are in a war.  The 90-day mark in the war on Libya (which began March 18) is here. and Congress has already reminded the White House that Congress has not authorized the Libya mission.  John Boehner has sent a letter to the President stating that if Congress does not authorize the Libya mission by Sunday, President Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act.

The article further reports:

"What's the difference, according to the White House's War Powers logic, between what we're doing in Libya right now and what we're doing in Yemen? Special Ops has been using drones and remotely piloted planes in Yemen for years; CIA drones are set to join the battle soon to provide more firepower against Al Qaeda. So while there are no U.S. forces at risk, the mission is escalating and we're not in a support role. Does that mean the WPA does or doesn't apply? Or is it the White House's position that the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force passed after 9/11 lets it go after AQ anywhere, in perpetuity, so that a new congressional authorization isn't needed?"

I guess the thing that worries me here is that theoretically we could be at war with the entire Middle East by saying that we are pursuing Al Qaeda or protecting civilian lives from a tyrannical dictator.  That is expensive in both monetary cost and the cost of the young men and women in our military.  We need an organized Middle East policy that puts the interests of America first.  All other countries in the world have foreign policies that put their own interests first.  We need to make sure we do that.  I am not opposed to humanitarian aid--but we cannot continue to spend our young lives for causes that may or may not be worthwhile.

Channel 9 News is reporting on a children's lemonade stand near the U. S. Open which has been shut down by a county inspector:

"A county inspector ordered the Marriott and Augustine kids to shut down the stand they set up on Persimmon Tree Rd., right next to Congressional. And after they allegedly ignored a couple of warnings, the inspector fined their parents $500."

The article points out that because the children did not have a vendors license, they could not see their lemonade. 

The article reports:

"Jennifer Hughes, the director of permitting for the county, says it's technically illegal to run even the smallest lemonade stand in the county, but inspectors usually don't go looking for them. She said this one was unusually large. Hughes also says they've warned all kinds of other vendors they couldn't operate near the US Open because of concerns about traffic and safety."

The article also points out that many of the people living near where the U. S. Open is taking place have purchased permits (cost $300) to allow people attending the Open to park on their lawns.  One neighbor says that he has made enough money with parking during golf events to pay for one of his children's college tuition.

My questions is simple--if the children had paid the money for the permit, would they be allowed to sell their lemonade?  What would be the regulations that would affect their lemonade stand?

Does anyone else believe that it's about the money and that the nanny state has run amok?

Fox News in Washington D.C. is reporting that the man taken into custody near the Pentagon early this morning is former Marine Corps reservist Yonathan Melaku.  Mr. Melaku was suspected of carrying a backpack full of ammonium nitrate.  Tests on the substance showed it to be an inert substance despite the fact that it was labeled ammonium nitrate. 

The article reports:

"A notebook was also found in his bag with words such as Taliban and Al Qaeda.

"Melaku was a Lance Corporal Marine corps reservist who joined in August of 2007.

"According to Marine Corps records, Melaku is a Muslim."

The story recounts the story of two other arrests--one at Arlington National Cemetery and another near the Pentagon.

One of the things Al Qaeda is known for is dry runs before a terrorism event.  This definitely sounds like one.  We also need to keep in mind that the new leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, is known for his hatred of Americans.

CNS News reported yesterday:

"In a 2001 treatise, he set down the long-term strategy for the jihadi movement -- to inflict "as many casualties as possible" on the Americans.

""Pursuing the Americans and Jews is not an impossible task," he wrote. "Killing them is not impossible, whether by a bullet, a knife stab, a bomb or a strike with an iron bar."

"Al-Zawahri's hatred for Americans has also become deeply personal: His wife and at least two of their six children were killed in a U.S. airstrike following the 2001 U.S. invasion of Afghanistan after the 9-11 attacks."

  This is a time for Americans to be very alert. 

Congressmen (and Congresswomen) do not really get paid an awful lot for the job that they do.  However, it seems to be an incredible coincidence that as the American public has seen their wealth decrease over the past three years, many of our Congressmen have seen their wealth increase greatly. 

Today's New York Daily News reported that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has increased her wealth 62% last year.  She is now worth $35.2 million, according to financial disclosure forms released Wednesday. 

This is not a partisan thing.  The article also reported:

"The California Democrat's gavel-gripping successor, Republican John Boehner, also saw his wealth get a boost, with the Ohio GOPer's net worth increasing from $1.8 million in 2009 to $2.1 million last year."

The increase in Ms. Pelosi's wealth is due to recent stock gains and smart investments.  The increase in Speaker Boehner's wealth is due to his portfolio of stocks in oil companies, financial firms, communication companies and pharmaceuticals.

The article also lists other Congressmen who have increased their wealth as the wealth of Americans has decreased.  Although there may be no unethical behavior involved in these statistics, it does seem weird that some in Congress get richer as Americans get poorer.  I wonder if we could base the Congressional pay scale on the increase or decrease in the wealth of the American people.

It would be a small stretch, but you could say that Christian radicals founded this country.  When you look at the Mayflower Compact and also the history involving the settlements in Virginia, there is little doubt as to the faith of those who crossed the Atlantic to come here.  You really did have to have a lot of faith to cross the Atlantic at that time!  But things have changed.

CNS News reported today on the congressional hearing on Muslim radicalization in U.S. prisons. 

The article reports:

"Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said that investigators needed to analyze Christian militants in America because they too might try to "bring down the country.""

I suspect that might be news to those who study the lives of George Washington and some of the other early patriots. 

The article reports the conversation:

"In an exchange with witness Patrick Dunleavy, the former deputy inspector of the criminal intelligence unit, New York Department of Correctional Services, Rep. Jackson Lee mentioned the case of a man who blew up an abortion clinic and proposed that this perhaps was an attempt to undermine U.S. law that allows a woman to procure an abortion."

"Rep. Lee then said, "As we look to be informational, we should include an analysis of how Christian militants or others might bring down the country. We have to look broadly, do we not?"

"Dunleavy answered:  "I don't know that Christian militants have foreign country backing or foreign country financing."

"Lee then said, "I don't think that's the issue. The issue is whether or not their intent is to undermine the laws of this nation. And I think it is clear that that is the case. So it's not -- your distinction is not answering the question.""

I guess Rep. Lee believes Christians are as much of a threat to this nations as Muslims.  How far we have traveled from the day when our founding fathers wrote:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

It's time to remember that Rep. Lee and her colleagues do not give us our rights--those rights come from God.  When our founding fathers spoke of God, they referred to the God of the Bible.  That God is not a threat to our nation--He is part of our nation's foundation.

The bottom line here is that Muslim radicalization in prison is a problem.  Many of the approved Muslim prison chaplains have ties to militant Islamic groups.  I am glad that Rep. King has the courage to go forward with these hearings.

NEW JOBS FOR MASSACHUSETTS LAUNCHES

Group Advocates Job Creation

Boston and Worcester, MA...Today Mike Hruby and Marty Lamb launched an advocacy
group focused on job creation in Massachusetts called New Jobs for Massachusetts
(NJFM).

"We have a job crisis in Massachusetts. We've had no net job growth in 21 years,"
said Hruby, President of NJFM.

Jobs Needed

Unemployed workers

300,000

Under-employed workers

600,000

College graduates per year

90,000

High school graduates not going to college

10,000

Total

1 million

"Right now we need one million new jobs in the Commonwealth. Due to this urgent
need, we felt it was important to establish this advocacy group solely focused in
on growing jobs. There are many government barriers to creating jobs and someone
needs to address them," said Hruby.

First on his agenda is to fight the independent contractor rule which is the worst
in the country. Presently, the way the regulation is written it is nearly impossible
to do contract work. It forces companies to make everyone an employee which on the
surface seems productive, but it actually suffocates new service firms from growing
and thus hiring a skilled workforce.

"Our goal is to reverse the anti-jobs laws passed on Beacon Hill by educating our
elected officials on the difficulties of adding to a business payroll. As small
business owners, we know first hand how difficult our laws and regulations can be.
By eliminating or reducing barriers, we can spur on critical job growth," said Marty
Lamb, Vice President of NJFM. "My daughter just graduated from high school. I want
her to have the economic opportunities I had when starting out."

There are several groups such as the National Federation of Independent Business
and Associated Industries of Massachusetts that focus on the business side of legislative
issue. NJFM will advocate for policies that grow jobs both in large and small businesses.

NJFM is funded by private small contributions so this new organization does not
have a membership list that might face retaliation from the State House for being
vocal on issues.

Mike Hruby has been a consultant to large and mid-sized technology companies for
more than 20 years. During the course of over 500 projects his firm helped companies
nationwide enter new markets for their products. Since 2004 he built a data center
cooling business for a client based on its patent, and found licensees for corporate
technologies. He wrote an award-winning book on corporate growth strategy titled
Technoleverage. He has a Master's degree in Resource Economics from the University
of New Hampshire. He lives in Boxborough, Mass., with his wife, Leslie.

Mr. Lamb graduated from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University
in 1985 and received his Bachelor of Arts from Hampshire College in 1982. He has
an extensive background in real estate law, formerly with Adelson, Golden & Loria,
P.C., Edward A. Sokoloff & Associates, and Lamb & Shaffer, P.C. and is currently
with Lamb and Browne, P.C. He is a member of the Real Estate Bar Association of
Massachusetts and small business. An active participant in community affairs, Mr.
Lamb sits on the Board of Directors of New England Region of United Synagogue and
is a past president of Temple Beth Torah in Holliston. He has also served on the
Holliston Elementary School Council and the Campaign for Holliston Schools. In
2010 Lamb won the hotly contested GOP primary for Congress in the 3rd district.

www.NewMassJobs.com

Yesterday Power Line reported that scientists at the National Solar Observatory have released a report stating that the sun may be entering a period of decreased solar activity, lowering the temperature on earth.  On Tuesday, Anthony Watts at WattsUpWithThat posted an article on the three trends that point to a decrease in solar activity.

Mr. Watts reports:

"A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL).

"As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all.

"The results were announced at the annual meeting of the Solar Physics Division of the American Astronomical Society, which is being held this week at New Mexico State University in Las Cruces:  http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/SPD2011/"

The bottom line here is that many scientists are predicting a period of global cooling. 

The article at Power Line reports:

"Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
"During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today - including the Thames - routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases."

I am not a scientist.  All this means to me is that there is not a consensus on what the earth's future climate will be or exactly what will be responsible for any changes in climate we see in the next fifty years.  Therefore, I would suggest that we move slowly in taking any actions to change or impact the things that might impact the earth's climate until we truly know what direction the climate is heading.  We don't always correctly forecast the weather for next week.  What makes us think we can predict weather thirty years from now?

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared that the state's collective-bargaining law could take effect, overruling a lower court judge who had put the law on hold. 

The article states:

"The decision limits Wisconsin's public employees to bargaining over their wages. Raises will be limited to the inflation rate unless voters approve larger increases. The law also requires public employees to contribute 5.8% of their salaries to their pensions and pay at least 12.6% of their health-care premiums."

This is the platform Governor Walker ran on and that the legislature passed. 

The article further reports:

"Next month, nine state senators--six Republicans and three Democrats--will face recall elections sparked by public rancor over the collective-bargaining debate. The Senate currently has 19 Republicans and 14 Democrats.

""Gov. Walker and the legislative Republicans' insistence on union-busting and taking away workers' rights resulted in months of legal wrangling, unprecedented political divisiveness and millions of dollars of lost budget savings," Senate Democratic Leader Mark Miller said."

The battle to bring fiscal sanity into state budgets and state worker's benefits will probably continue in Wisconsin and elsewhere.  I don't believe anyone wants to take away the benefits of federal or state workers--I do believe that the goal here is to bring federal and state workers' benefits in line with benefits in the private sector.  Hopefully, Wisconsin (and other states) will be successful in this effort.

Yesterday the New York Times reported that the Pakistani government has detained five informants that helped the CIA locate Osama Bin Laden. 

The article reports:

"The fate of the C.I.A. informants arrested in Pakistan is unclear, but American officials said that the C.I.A. director, Leon E. Panetta, raised the issue when he travelled to Islamabad last week to meet with Pakistani military and intelligence officers. 

"Some in Washington see the arrests as illustrative of the disconnect between Pakistani and American priorities at a time when they are supposed to be allies in the fight against Al Qaeda -- instead of hunting down the support network that allowed Bin Laden to live comfortably for years, the Pakistani authorities are arresting those who assisted in the raid that killed the world's most wanted man."

This is another indication that Pakistan may not be our best ally in the war on terrorism.  At risk is the future of the drone program that has been so instrumental in dealing with the top leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan.  There has been a lot of pressure from Pakistan to end this program. 

The article further reports:

"Another casualty of the recent tension is an ambitious Pentagon program to train Pakistani paramilitary troops to fight Al Qaeda and the Taliban in those same tribal areas. That program has ended, both American and Pakistani officials acknowledge, and the last of about 120 American military advisers have left the country.

"American officials are now scrambling to find temporary jobs for about 50 Special Forces support personnel who had been helping the trainers with logistics and communications. Their visas were difficult to obtain and officials fear if these troops are sent home, Pakistan will not allow them to return."

Pakistan receives $2 billion in American military aid annually.  It might be time to take another look at how that money is being spent.

Another recent event should cause America to question the seriousness of the Pakistani's war on terror.  The article reports:

"American officials said Mr. Panetta presented satellite photographs of two bomb-making factories that American spies several weeks ago had asked the ISI to raid. When Pakistani troops showed up days later, the militants were gone, causing American officials to question whether the militants had been warned by someone on the Pakistani side.

"Shortly after the failed raids, the Defense Department put a hold on a $300 million payment reimbursing Pakistan for the cost of deploying more than 100,000 troops along the border with Afghanistan, two officials said.  The Pentagon declined to comment on the payment, except to say it was "continuing to process several claims.""

Enough.

Innovation is one of the things that has made America great.  In a free market economy, innovators can reap the rewards of their inventions because a good invention will sell.  It doesn't even have to be particularly useful--for example the hula hoop.  Many of us had a lot of fun with that invention, the inventor made millions, and everyone was happy.  That is how the free market works.  The good inventions succeed, progress is made, and everyone moves forward.  Congress has other ideas.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an article on Congress' latest adventure in crony capitalism.  Unfortunately, Republicans and Democrats are both involved in this latest attack on the free market. 

The article explains:

"But HR 1380, sponsored at last count by 105 Democrats and 83 Republicans, is another government intervention in the free market. Instead of getting government out of the way of innovators, it would give a tax credit for up to 80% of the purchase cost of a natural gas vehicle -- with a cap dependent on the car's weight, $8,000 for passenger cars and up to $64,000 for heavy trucks -- to get more gas-powered vehicles on the road.

"It so happens that a company called Westport Innovations is a leading provider of technology that allows engines to operate on clean-burning fuels such as compressed natural gas and would be expected to benefit from HR 1380's huge allocation of taxpayer dollars."

The article goes on to mention that one of the major stockholders in Westport Innovations is George Soros.  Mr. Soros also profitted handsomely from his investment in Petrobras.  The details of that escapade were reported at rightwinggranny on December 8, 2009.  Unfortunately, this is not a new thing.

The article at Investors.com also points out:

"HR 1380 effectively puts an end to all challenges to the EPA's regulatory dictates in a section (403) that says EPA "regulations should take into account the petroleum reductions provided by such vehicles and also quantify all greenhouse-gas emission reductions." As such, HR 1380 would give the unelected bureaucracy at the EPA a blank check to control all U.S. energy production and consumption."

I am not opposed to 'green energy;' however, I believe that a free market brings out the best ideas.  A government controlled market does not result in the kind of energy innovation we need at this time.  If we really want to see 'green energy' become a practical part of America's energy program, we need to get the government out of the energy marketplace and let the innovators take over (and make a profit).  There is nothing wrong with profit--our economy depends on it!

This Executive Order is truly under the radar.  Today the Canada Free Press posted an article about an Executive Order signed by President Obama on June 9, 2011.  The executive order establised the White House Rural Council with 25 executive branch departments including Defense, Justice, Homeland Security, National Drug Control, Environmental Quality, Labor, Commerce, Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, Housing, Health, Education, and others. 

The article reports:

"Roger K. Lewis suggests that "smart growth" was designed by market forces driven by "green building." He makes no mention of Agenda 21 and ICLEI objectives and intrusion into our society since the early 1970s or the agreement signed in 1992 that went under the radar of the American people's understanding of the complex negative ramifications for our economy and our liberties.

"I have not met Americans who think, "sprawl-producing planning, zoning and mortgage templates are obsolete" as the author claims. Would Americans willingly give up their land and homes with or without compensation in exchange for a move to a densely populated high-rise, with no parking garages, no access to cars, like rats fenced in a grey concrete maze?"

There is no way Washington should be allowed to create more government employees to control rural America.  I am not sure what recourse Congress or the American people have in dealing with an Executive Order.  However, this Executive Order seems to be in violation of the Tenth Amendment.  Some of the logic behind this order is distrubing.

"It is obvious that "smart growth plans" or Agenda 21 designed by United Nations will affect our future choices in how we live and where. EPA will be involved and will twist the arms of those who do not adopt "smart growth plans," denying grants to states and cities and levying other penalties. By the time Americans realize the implications of Agenda 21"smart growth," they will lose their homes and lands with no compensation. At least people who lost property under Eminent Domain have been compensated.

"The International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) is a conglomerate of 600 national, regional, and local government associations who promote "sustainable development" and protection of the environment because of man-made global warming that does not exist.

""Sustainable development" is the United Nations effort to contain and limit economic development in developed countries and thus control population growth. It is "sustainable de-growth," plain and simple. The focus is "low-income agriculture" and to set limits on the developed world."

America, like the rest of the world, is going through a rough economic patch right now.  I happen to think that the reason we have not fully come out of the current recession has to do with the policies currently being implemented by the current White House and Congress.  I believe that a change of administration in 2012 will remedy a lot of America's current economic problems.  Our prosperity as a country has always been related to the freedom of our people.  Freedom is a concept that the current United Nations does not understand.

As I have said before, I don't know what can be done about an Executive Order, but we need to get rid of this one as soon as possible.

Today's UK Mail posted an article about the number of people killed by euthanasia in Belgium without their consent so that their organs could be used in organ transplants.  Euthanasia became legal in Belgium in 2002; the law at that time required that the individual involved request euthanasia.  Evidently, things have changed.

The article reports:

"'Given that half of all euthanasia cases in Belgium are involuntary it must be only a matter of time before the organs are taken from patients who are euthanised without their consent.

"'The matter of fact way the retrieval process is described in the paper is particularly chilling and shows the degree of collaboration that is necessary between the euthanasia team and the transplant surgeons - prep them for theatre next to the operating room, then kill them and wheel them in for organ retrieval. All in a day's work in Brave New Belgium.'

"He added: 'Doctors there now do things that those in most doctors in other countries would find absolutely horrific.'

The report comes just a year after researchers found a high proportion of deaths classified as euthanasia in Belgium have involved patients who have not requested their lives to be ended by a doctor."

The idea that any of these deaths involved patients who have not requested their lives to be ended by a doctor is frightening.  Doctors in America take an oath to "do not harm."  I don't know if doctors in other countries take that oath or not.  It seems like now might be a really good time to encourage doctors around the world to encourage life--not try to end it in order to satisfy a demand for used body part in good shape.

Remember all the promises that Obamacare would prevent anyone applying for health insurance from being denied coverage due to previous medical conditions or past healthcare history?  Well, another promise just got broken.

Today's Daily Caller reported that some time between June 19, 2009, the date on a copy of the Obamacare bill obtained by The Daily Caller, and early fall 2009, when the Democrats introduced the bill into the House of Representatives, the provision that would have stopped Medigap plan providers, including American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) partners, from discriminating against senior citizens with pre-existing conditions was dropped.  This is very interesting since the AARP was one of the strongest supporters of the bill.  By supporting the bill, the AARP totally betrayed the people they are supposed to represent.

The article reported:

"A House Democratic aide told Kaiser Health News (KHN) earlier this year that the Medigap provision was removed from the bill because it cost too much."

There is so much chicanery surrounding the Affordable Care Act and the way it was passed that it should be repealed because of that alone!  I hope the courts strike this law down--it does not do the things that are needed in healthcare reform and it creates nothing but problems for Americans who have previously been satisfied with their health insurance and healthcare.  It is a perfect example of both crony capitalism and government overreach.

CNS News reported today that 1.9 million fewer Americans have jobs today than had jobs before the stimulus law was signed. 

The article reports:

"In February 2009, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported that 141.7 million people were employed. By the end of May 2011 - the last month for which data are available - that number had fallen to 139.8 million, a difference of 1.9 million.

"While the number of people with jobs has increased slightly from its low point during the recession - 137.9 million in December 2009 - those 1.9 million jobs have been lost despite $800 billion in stimulus spending."

That is an awful lot of money spent on a program that didn't get the intended result.   Former White House chief economist Larry Summers reported in a Washington Post op-ed recently that the percentage of the population that has jobs has not improved--in fact it has fallen from 60.3 percent in February 2009 to 58.4 percent in May 2011.

As I have stated previously, I did not watch the Republican debate last night.  I am on vacation, and the time difference is totally confusing my news consumption.  However, I heard enough sound bites from the debate to know that the Republicans have valid plans to create jobs and turn the economy around.  The excessive regulations--those regulations already passed and those regulations that companies fear will be passed--have put a damper on economic growth during the past two years.  We need to end overregulation and create a balance between total chaos and overregulation for the future.  I believe that any one of the Republican candidates currently running for President will aim in that direction.  As a country, we cannot afford four more years of President Barack Obama. 

One of the more interesting events in some small New England towns is the Town Meeting.  This is an event that usually takes place in a local school auditorium annually or when special funding is requested for an item.  All residents of the town may attend the meeting, but only registered voters may vote.  In the town of Plainville, Massachusetts, a town of 8,264 people, generally two or three hundred people attend the town meeting.  In the case of Plainville, town meetings may be carried over to another night if all the items on the warrant are not covered on the first night.

Last night was the second part of the annual town meeting in Plainville, Massachusetts.  The Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported on the second part of the meeting.

The article states:

"A fear of Big Brother government encroachment on individual freedom dominated debate at town meeting Monday as an energy conservation measure was rejected and an abandoned building bylaw was challenged."

The energy conservation measure that was voted on last night was actually a reconsideration of an article that had been voted down during the first part of the meeting.  The program, called the Stretch Code, would have resulted in the town receiving government grants in order to make buildings in the town more energy efficient.  It would have also put energy requirements on new construction and any remodeling projects done by homeowners.  The residents of the town simply did not want more government regulation.

The abandoned building bylaw did pass, although it was challenged. 

The article reports:

"An argument against government regulation was also made in a failed attempt to defeat an abandoned building bylaw. Voters approved it on a voice vote.

"The bylaw requires owners of vacant buildings to maintain them and register them with the town so they do not become public safety hazards.

"Some claimed that bylaw would allow "vengeful town officials" to crack down on a house if an elderly resident was in the hospital or away on a long vacation.

""I'm afraid of Big Brother. A lot could fall through the cracks," one woman said.

"But, town officials said the law would only kick in if the building was vacant for 45 days or more and if it fell into a state of disrepair."

The abandoned building law will help the town deal with Falk's Market, an abandoned building in the center of the town.  The building is an eyesore and a hazard, and town residents are not pleased with the lack of legal recourse in getting the building either rebuilt or torn down.  This law will change that.

Generally speaking, it was a productive town meeting.  Town meetings are representative government in its most basic form.  Attending a town meeting is a good way to learn how government works and how things get done within the context of town government.

I have to admit that I am on vacation and did not watch the debate.  I did hear portions of it, but did not watch any of it.  There are, however, two of the news sources that I trust that have posted summary articles on the debate.

Michael Barone posted his summary at the Washington Examiner.  Mr. Barone summarized each candidate and their weak and strong points.  He concluded that Mitt Romney conducted himself as the frontrunner, although Mr. Barone states that he believes that there is no actual frontrunner.  He also pointed out that Mitt Romney is wise to avoid the Iowa caucus because Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann are expected to do well there.   

John Hinderaker at Power Line also posted a summary of the debate.  Mr. Hinderaker felt that Mitt Romney came across very well.  He also points out that the candidates were focusing on issues and generally attacking the policies of President Obama rather than attacking each other.

In listening to other commentary on the debate, I heard comments about the fact that CNN is not a neutral news service in moderating this debate.  In the portions of the debate that I did hear, the candidates were not asked serious questions and not allowed to answer the questions completely before they were cut off. 

This is a serious election.  There are serious matters that need to be dealt with.  We have an economy in trouble, natural disasters in many states, three wars, and the threat of terrorism.  It is time for a serious debate where candidates can give complete answers that allow the voters to make an informed decision as to who will lead the country.

On Thursday, the Heritage Foundation posted an article about the Falkland Islands.  These are the islands off the coast of Argentina that Argentina invaded in 1982, capturing more than 1,800 British civilians.  The British fought back, losing 257 British soldiers in the process.  Now Argentina is again attempting to regain control of the Islands, with the backing of the United States, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.  That is not really the company I like to see the United States keeping.

The article at the Heritage Foundation reports:

"On June 7, the General Assembly of the Organization of American States (OAS) adopted a declaration[1] calling for Argentina and Great Britain to enter into negotiations over the sovereignty of the Falklands, a position that London has long viewed as completely unacceptable. The White House signed on to the declaration, putting it at odds with the British and in league with a number of anti-American regimes, including Chavez's Venezuela and Daniel Ortega's Nicaragua."

This is the footnote:

[1]Organization of American States, "Draft Declaration on the Question of the Malvinas Islands," June 7, 2011, at http://www.oas.org/en/41ga/docs/AG05445E02.doc (June 9, 2011).

The article further reports:

"As Margaret Thatcher reminded the world in an address to the House of Commons after the Argentine invasion in 1982, the Falklands are, and will always remain, British:

"The people of the Falkland Islands, like the people of the United Kingdom, are an island race. Their way of life is British; their allegiance is to the Crown. They are few in number, but they have the right to live in peace, to choose their own way of life and to determine their own allegiance. It is the wish of the British people and the duty of Her Majesty's Government to do everything that we can to uphold that right. That will be our hope and our Endeavour and, I believe, the resolve of every Member of the House."

I really don't understand what the Obama administration is doing here.  The islands are British.  This would be like the United States being asked to turn Hawaii over to another country.  It just seems as if the Obama administration is supporting troublemakers around the world and turning its back on our traditional allies.

There is a website, called World War II Experience, that is collecting first-hand, personal stories of our World War II veterans.  The stories are short, personal accounts of wartime experiences, sometimes including links to more complete stories.  The areas the website covers include the Pacific Theatre, the European Theatre, Prisoners of War, and the Home Front.  It is a very interesting website. 

We are rapidly losing those veterans who fought in World War II, and it is wonderful that someone is collecting their stories to preserve that period of history.  Please visit the site to learn some of the experiences of the people who were there.

I really don't want to debate whether or not the media is biased.  The bias is documented in a number of places. 

The chart below is from the website of Media Research:

If you question the premise, there is more information at that website.

The first casualty of media bias is public interest and involvement.  There are a large number of Americans who do not care about the political process because they believe all politicians are crooks or that the process is fixed.  They have long since given up on actually knowing the truth of any given issue.  An objective media might bring them back to the point of being involved.  Public involvement is a necessary ingredient of a successful representative republic.

The second casualty of media bias is the quality of candidates running for office.  In 1987, the media destroyed Robert Bork, who was nominated for the Supreme Court.  Judge Bork did not initially answer the charges levied against him by the media because he assumed that the public would not believe them--they were so over-the-top.  Obviously, he paid dearly for that mistake.  Since then, there have been a number of Republican and Conservative candidates the media has attempted (and sometimes succeeded) in destroying--Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Sarah Palin.  The list goes on.  How can we expect anyone to come forward to offer new ideas or a new perspective as a candidate if they have to run the risk of being destroyed by the media?

The third casualty of media bias is good legislation.  The healthcare bill passed by Congress was over 2,000 pages long.  Representative Nancy Pelosi is quoted as saying, "We have to pass the bill so you can see what's in it."  Do you think an objective media might have looked at the bill more closely to see exactly what was in it?  The latest financial regulation bill is also about 2,000 pages long, and again there are questions as to what exactly is in it.  We need an objective media to help Americans keep track of the laws Congress is passing and how they will impact us as average citizens.  There have been a number of times in the past that Congress was in a position to pass legislation that would have helped avoid our present fiscal situation, but fear of public opinion prevented that legislation.  We are currently watching the media trash Paul Ryan's budget proposal, when it may be a very necessary answer for Medicare.

I realize in writing this that no media will ever be totally objective.  It would be nice, however, if the media were willing to state its political affiliations.  I don't expect reporters to be neutral--they are very aware of what is going around them and quite likely to have an opinion.  They are entitled to that opinion, just as you and I are entitled to our opinions.  What the media is not entitled to is to report the news in a biased manner while pretending to be objective.  Bias in the media is not good for America, and all Americans need to be aware when they read a news story that they may not be hearing the whole story.

On Thursday The Hill reported that new Environmental Protection Agency regulations have caused  American Electric Power to shut down five power plants and spend billions of dollars to comply with the regulations. 

The article reports:

""Let me be clear, it's decisions like the one made by AEP today that demonstrate the urgent need to rein in government agencies like the EPA, preventing them from overstepping their bounds and imposing regulations that not only cost us good American jobs, but hurt our economy," said  (Sen. Joe) Manchin (D-W.Va.), an outspoken critic of the EPA.

"But EPA defended its regulations Thursday, noting that the agency has worked closely with industry to ensure that its regulations are "reasonable, common-sense and achievable.""

There is a need for balance between jobs and the environment.  I don't think anyone is actually in favor of dirty air or dirty water.  However, I think that to institute extreme environmental regulations at a time when the country is going through difficult economic times is destructive.  The regulations involved are 'pending.'  I hope they remain pending instead of being put into place.

Another article posted at the Yahoo Contributors website:

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8094613/why_i_am_having_trouble_with_scott.html?cat=9

 

Enjoy!

For those who are interested, I have a new article posted at Yahool Associates:

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8099475/confessions_of_a_cat_shelter_foster.html?cat=7

 

I hope you enjoy it!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article stating that House of Representatives Democrats are demanding an end to the 'Bush tax cuts' in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. 

The article states:

"A group of House Democrats is calling for any deal to raise the debt ceiling to bring about the end of the Bush tax rates for the wealthy.

"The lawmakers, led by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), also say that, following last week's weak job report, they are concerned that certain decreases in federal spending could hurt the economy's recovery.

""At this point, both government and private-sector economists agree that sharp immediate cuts in government spending risk plunging our economy into a double-dip recession that will cost further jobs and ultimately worsen our fiscal situation," the lawmakers wrote in a letter obtained by The Hill.

"They added that allowing the Bush tax rates for the wealthiest to expire at the end of next year would by itself "stop the growth of the deficit over the next decade.""

There are a number of probems with this statement.  First of all, it is mathematically challenged--ending the 'Bush tax cuts' would net about $700 billion over ten years.  That would not even eliminate the growth of the deficit over ten years--it wouldn't even cut this year's deficit in half.  Secondly, the 'Bush tax cuts' impact a lot of small businesses--the people who create jobs.  Eliminating the 'Bush tax cuts' means that any new hiring that might happen in the next year or so will probably not happen.  Finally, the way that the House of Representatives is structured, the minority party has very little power.  Simply stated, the Republicans have enough of a majority to pass anything they want.  Hopefully they won't abuse that power, but nevertheless, they do have it.

The Democrats are making another attempt to become known as the 'tax and spend' party.  That comes at a time when Americans are looking to cut taxes and spending.  The kind of logic in the Democrat proposal on the Debt Ceiling may actually help the Republicans in 2012.

Yesterday the Chicago Tribune posted a story about the lasting benefits of preschool.  The original article I read on this study came from the North County Times (NCTIMES.COM) in Southern California.  That article is not listed as the source of my information because although the article was on the front page of their newspaper, I could not find it on their website.  There are some interesting differences between the two articles, but they draw the same conclusions.

The Chicago Tribune points out that the study shows the benefits of preschool, particularly in disadvantaged neighborhoods.  The study tracked 1,400 students from Chicago Public Schools for 25 years to determine the value of a preschool education.  The study compared children who started preschool at age 3 in Child-Parent Centers, located in or near elementary schools serving low-income students, with those who didn't attend preschool at all or went to the typical Head Start program

The article reports:

"The Child-Parent Centers ensure students have two years of preschool before kindergarten and then follow children through second and third grades. The program focuses on developing reading, writing and math skills, along with requiring parent participation in classrooms twice a month. A program like Head Start teaches preschoolers to recognize letters of the alphabet and build their vocabulary but also focuses heavily on providing socio-emotional development and health services to kids."

There is a minor problem I have with this study.  Most teachers will tell you that students do better in school when their parents are involved.  I have no doubt that the children were helped by the academic portion of the program, but I also believe they were helped by their parents' involvement in their education.

The article in the North County Times listed some of the statistics included in the study:

• 80 percent of the preschool group finished high school versus 75 percent of the others
• Average annual adult income for preschool group was about $11,6000 as opposed to $10,800 in the other group
• 48 percent of the preschool goup had been arrested as adults and 15 percent had been in prison.  In the non-preschool group , 54 percent had been arrested and 21 percent had been in prison.

I don't doubt their statistics, I just doubt their conclusion.  One of the major problems in our society for the past fifty years or so has been the breakdown of the family, the need for two parents to be in the workforce instead of one parent being home with their children, and the number of single-parent homes.  Although the academic part of the preschool program is good, I think the key to the success of the program is the requirement that parents be involved in their children's education.  There is a value to preschool programs, and I support them, but there is a greater value in getting parents involved in their children's education and that costs a whole lot less.

Today The Hill reported that Boeing has opened its manufacturing plant in South Carolina in spite of the fact that the lawsuit brought by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) against them is still ongoing.  The NLRB has sued Boeing for opening the manufacturing plant in South Carolina (a right-to-work state), rather than in Washington state, where they have other manufacturing plants.

The article reports:

"But Friday was not about that, Gayla Keller of Boeing said. 

""While there's been a lot in the news recently about government attempts to force Boeing to place the second final assembly line in Puget Sound and close the South Carolina final assembly and delivery facility, we are confident that Boeing will prevail against the National Labor Relations Board complaint," Keller said in an email to reporters. "But today for us is not about that dispute, but instead we want to celebrate the opening of the South Carolina final assembly facility, as well as the continued outstanding work by our employees in the Puget Sound as they build the world's best commercial aircraft." 

The new plant in South Carolina will manufacture the 787.  The new plant does not move any jobs from Washington state to South Carolina, it will be a new manufacturing facility. 

By opening the new plant in South Carolina, Boeing will bring jobs to the state and create a product that can be sold, thus improving the economy.  Hopefully, they can continue to do this without any further government interference.

Yesterday The Hill reported that Exxon has made a major oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico.  The discovery,  700 million barrels of oil equivalent, was made at a deepwater well off the coast of Louisiana. 

The article reports:

""This is one of the largest discoveries in the Gulf of Mexico in the last decade," Exxon Mobil Exploration Company President Steve Greenlee said in a statement."

At the moment, the Obama administration has been very slow to issue drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico.  Only fifteen deepwater permits have been issued since February. 

Congressional Republicans are arguing the drilling permits in the Gulf need to be approved more quickly in order to take advantage of the new discovery.

Approving drilling permits more quickly would help lower unemployment in the Gulf region, and would also result in the creation of more jobs in the Gulf states. 

Fox News reported yesterday that according to a new report issued by the Institute of Medicine, 'green' buildings may be hazardous to your health. 

The article points out that when homeowners winterize their homes by plugging air leaks to the outside, they may unintentionally cause the air inside the house to become less healthy. 

The article reports:

"By making buildings more airtight, building owners could increase "indoor-air contaminant concentrations and indoor-air humidity," the report said. By adding insulation, they could trigger moisture problems. By making improvements to older homes, crews could stir up hazardous material ranging from asbestos to harmful caulking -- though that problem is not unique to energy improvements." 

This is not news to anyone who lives in a climate where heat is needed in the winter and air conditioning is needed in the summer.  Nothing compares to the first warm day in the Spring when you can open up the windows and air the house out after a long winter. 

The article at the Institute of Medicine urged organizations to be aware of the consequences of making buildings more energy efficient and take actions to minimize their impact on the public health.  Obviously, balance is the key.

Yesterday U. S. News reported at its Washington Whispers Blog that two new 'pending' regulations by the Environmental Protection Agency will have a major negative impact on the coal industry.  The new regulations are designed to cut pollution from coal-fired power plants.  Americans get about 54 percent of their electricity from coal, so any regulation that impacts coal-fired power plants is going to impact the cost of electricity. 

If the 'pending' regulations are passed, electric rates for Americans are expected to rise between 11 and 23 percent.  There are also predictions that hundreds of thousands of jobs will be lost. 

The article reports:

"Overall, the rules aimed at making the air cleaner could cost the coal-fired power plant industry $180 billion, warns a trade group."

The one thing I had trouble finding when I researched this article was exactly what change would result from the 'pending' regulations.  First of all, I don't believe in the concept of 'pending' regulations.  The government doesn't do 'pending'--it just does.   Americans are used to having available, reasonably-priced electricity.  If we are being asked to give this up (along with employment losses of over 1.4 million jobs by 2020), I want to be sure that the regulations would make a significant difference in air quality, and that the end result would be worth the sacrifice.

Meanwhile, I am not sure that implementing any regulation that increases the economic burden of Americans and causes jobs to be lost is a good idea at this time.  Unless there are overwhelming problems caused by the current regulations on coal-fired electric power plants, I think this might not be the time to change the rules.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta will hear arguments against Obamacare today by lawyers representing 26 states.  There are two major legal objections to Obamacare.  The first is that the individual mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance in unconstitutional.  The argument here is that if the government can require you to purchase health insurance, there is no limit to what the government can require you to purchase.  The second major objection is the way that Obamacare dramatically expands Medicaid.  Medicaid is a federal program that is partially funded by the states.  The idea that the Medicaid program would be massively expanded and the states forced to pay for the expansion is in violation of the Tenth Amendment. 

It is very likely that the next stop for Obamacare will be the Supreme Court.  It will be interesting to see if they take the case and how they rule on it.

CNS News reported today that the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has awarded $17.4 million for pilot projects that will begin exploring how to establish a market for greenhouse gas (GHG) credits, a key component of a cap and trade system, to help reduce carbon and other emissions that apparently contribute to global warming.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack stated that the projects were the beginnings of establishing an American Carbon Market. 

The money is part of the Conservation Innovation Grant (CIG) program that is supposed to encourage innovation in environmental technology and business. 

The article states:

"In other words, the CIG grants fund projects that attempt to measure the quantity of GHGs that are saved - by not farming rural land, for example - and how those savings affect the value of the offsets - how many GHG credits a particular action is worth.

"In a cap and trade system, farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture producers theoretically stand to make money by selling credits to other, GHG-intense businesses such as manufacturers and power companies.

"Among the projects being funded is a $1 million program across eight states to show that beef and dairy farmers can be incentivized to change how they handle animal feeding and manure to produce less methane emissions."

It might be a good time to mention that cap and trade legislature has never been appoved by Congress.  It also should be mentioned at this time that America is scheduled to run out of money some time in August.  This is an expenditure the House of Representatives should block.  It is neither helpful nor has it been voted into law.

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has failed to reach an agreement to increase production in order to keep high oil prices from endangering the world's economy.  The American Thinker posted an article today stating that despite the urging of Saudi Arabia, OPEC will not increase oil production.  Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producer in OPEC and in the past has always be able to temper the demand for less production and higher prices from other members.  Saudi influence is now lower due to the lower value of the American dollar and also due to the efforts of Venezuela and Iran, who now head up a bloc of nations hostile to the interests of western countries.  These countries need oil to remain above $100 a barrel due to domestic situations. 

As long as America refuses to utilize its own resources, Americans will be at the mercy of OPEC members and can expect to pay more for gasoline at the pump.

The Times Live reported yesterday that on Monday the Muslim Brotherhood's political party was declared legal in Egypt for the first time since it was founded.  The party is named the Freedom and Justice party and will be active in the upcoming elections in Egypt. 

The article reports:

"As the best-organised political movement in Egypt, the Brotherhood announced on April 30 the formation of a "non-theocratic party" to contest up to half of parliament's seats in a September election."

The party announced last month that it had almost 9,000 founding members.

The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is a world-wide caliphate under Sharia Law.  That is stated in their charter and was reaffirmed in the documents uncovered in the Holy Land Foundation Case in Texas.  Egypt is one of their first steps along that road.  The Arab spring will very shortly become a long, hot summer.

The San Francisco Examiner reported in April that backers of a law to prohibit the circumcision of male children in San Francisco say they have enough signatures to put the issue on the ballot in November. 

The article reports:

"The measure would amend the City's police code "to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicles or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18"

"Violators would face a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail.

""We don't come at this from a religious angle.  We feel this is a very hamful thing." (Lloyd)   Schofield said.  "Parents are guardians.  They are not owners of children.  It's a felony to tattoo a child."

I guess they have a right to put this on the ballot, but it seems to me that there are some freedom of religion issues involved.  I am also a little confused that a state which seems so lax on marijuana and illegal immigration would be concerned about circumcision.

Just to muddy up the waters, Fox News reported in May of this year:

"Circumcision is widely believed to prevent diseases, such as HIV, and there is some evidence that it reduces the risk of male-to-female HIV transfer.  The proposed mechanism is that circumcision removes what are called Langerhans cells in the foreskin, which are more susceptible to HIV infection.  Langerhans cells are equipped with special receptors that may allow HIV access into the body."

Circumcision is part of the Jewish tradition.  It began with Abraham.  I hope that if this is law does pass it is quickly challenged in court--this is a definite restriction on the religious freedom of the Jewish population.

Yesterday Market Watch released a survey showing that as the provisions of the Obama healthcare reform bill begin to kick in in 2014, three out of ten employers will stop offering company health insurance plans.  Aside from the problems that will create, did you notice that the majority of the Obama healthcare reform does not kick in until after the 2012 election.  At that point, Americans can't vote anyone out of office--the deed has been done.

The article reports:

"While only 7% of employees will be forced to switch to subsidized-exchange programs, at least 30% of companies say they will "definitely or probably" stop offering employer-sponsored coverage, according to the study published in McKinsey Quarterly.

"The survey of 1,300 employers says those who are keenly aware of the health-reform measure probably are more likely to consider an alternative to employer-sponsored plans, with 50% to 60% in this group expected to make a change. It also found that for some, it makes more sense to switch."

The White House disputes the study, saying that they do not believe the new insurance regulations will impact the number of employers offering insurance.  This is reminiscent of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) telling us, "[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."  The bill has passed and I am not sure the controversy will ever end.

I have been watching Anthony Weiner's press conference this afternoon.  Representative Weiner accepted guilt for the picture (and other pictures) he sent out over the internet.  Evidently there are more pictures from other relationships, mostly from before he was married.  He stated that he is guilty of poor judgment and regrets his actions.  Although I appreciate his apology, I feel that a few things were left out.  The thing that stands out to me is that just recently there was a special election in New York's 26th Congressional District because married Republican Congressman Chris Lee resigned after he had sent a shirtless picture to a woman he had met on Craigslist.  That was shirtless--there was no underwear involved.  Why is Anthony Weiner still in office?

The other aspect of this is the attack on Andrew Breitbart by Representative Weiner and some of the liberal media.  Representative Weiner accused Andrew Breitbart of hacking into his twitter account and sending the picture.   It is disturbing to me that when Representative Weiner's actions became public he attacked conservative media and was joined in that attack by some liberal media.

If Representative Weiner truly regretted his actions, he would resign.  It is really a shame that he did not have the decency to do that.

TAUNTON...Today, State Representative Shaunna O'Connell, 3rd Bristol House District, expressed deep disappointment in Governor Patrick's decision not to sign onto the federal secure communities program.

"This is an Obama administration program that has been implemented in 41 other states, and yet our Governor thinks it is not a good idea. I am deeply disappointed that Governor Patrick is not willing to put public safety first," said O'Connell. "The public hearings held by the Patrick administration,which were heavily stacked in favor of illegal immigrants, proved to be a nothing more than an attempt to delay implementation of the program."

Secure Communities is a federal program designed by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which is part of the Department of Homeland Security. The program identifies all deportable foreign nationals who are arrested by local police for other state and federal crimes. The criminal illegal immigrants who commit additional crimes are removed from the country instead of being released back into the community.

"Right now we have 24,000 criminal illegal immigrants at-large in Massachusetts. These are people who not only broke our laws crossing the borders, but they are also committing other serious crimes. The Obama administration's Secure Communities program allows for our local law enforcement to help identify deportable aliens via fingerprinting. This is not something new for the Commonwealth. Our state troopers were helping during the previous administration, and due to Governor Patrick's support of illegal immigrants, he overturned the public safety measure," said O'Connell.

Boston already has a pilot program which has resulted in 293 people being taken off the streets. Boston's Police Chief Ed Davis has said that everyone identified via SC was a public threat.

"This program has bipartisan support. It is time for the Governor to put the interests and safety of our law-abiding citizens first," added O'Connell.

O'Connell is a lifelong resident of Taunton. She worked her way through college by serving in the food department at Morton Hospital and quickly becoming a department supervisor. Professionally, O'Connell is a self-employed court reporter. She is a devoted wife and mother of two young children and continues to be active in her church and volunteer for numerous community programs.

masslive.com is reporting today that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick has decided to opt out of the federal Secure Communities program.  This is the program that asks states to check the immigration status of anyone arrested in the state. 

The article reports:

""The Governor and I are dubious of the Commonwealth taking on the federal role of immigration enforcement. We are even more skeptical of the potential impact that Secure Communities could have on the residents of the Commonwealth," Public Safety Secretary Mary Beth Heffernan wrote in a letter dated Friday to Acting Secure Communities Director Marc Rapp, informing the Department of Homeland Security that Massachusetts would not sign a memorandum of understanding for participation."

I guess I'm missing something, but if someone is brought into police custody for breaking the law, why is there a problem in checking to see if they are guilty of breaking another law by being here illegally? 

The article reports:

"(Public Safety Secretary Mary Beth) Heffernan cited concerns in the law enforcement community as well as some mayors that participation would deter the reporting of criminal activity, and "deteriorate relationships with communities that have been carefully cultivated with years of hard work.""

There is a reason illegal aliens are called illegal--they are not here legally.  It is not fair to the people patiently waiting in line for the chance to come to America to allow illegals to come here without any requirements.  This is the wrong decision for the safety of the people of Massachusetts.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that OPEC members meeting in Vienna this week find themselves on both sides of a military conflict in the Middle East.  This has not happened since Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990. 

The article reports:

"While Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi is trying to quash a rebellion in a country that holds Africa's largest crude reserves, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates are backing the insurgents."

The article points out that OPEC will probably leave its targeted output of oil unchanged at its current meeting.  As oil hovers around $100 a barrel, there are indications that the world economy is slowing down. 

The article further reports:

"While the group's 12 members may not reach a formal agreement to increase quotas this week, "an informal pact to ramp up production, most likely by OPEC's Gulf members as well as Nigeria, may emerge," the IEA said in a May report. The agency, which advises oil-importing nations, said in April that "revisiting individual production targets may be difficult now," amid tensions stoked by the Libyan conflict and a political crisis in the Persian Gulf state of Bahrain."

Two of the forces currently putting upward pressure on the price of oil are the devaluation of the U. S. dollar and the increasing demand for oil from China. 

D Day is something we read about in our history books.  I am not sure (until "Saving Private Ryan" was released) that any civilian understood how difficult and awful that invasion was.  As we remember those events today, we need to understand that victory on D Day was not a given.  We owe our freedom in America to those who stormed the beaches that day.  There was a letter written by General Eisenhower in case it failed.  This is what the free republic website says about that letter:

 

On the afternoon of July 11, 1944, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower came across a forgotten note tucked inside his wallet. He called in his naval aide, Capt. Harry C. Butcher, who, taking the paper, read:

"Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air and the Navy did all that Bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt it is mine alone."

It was dated, in Ike's hand, July 5. Butcher knew it had to have been -- and was -- written June 5, when "Bravery and devotion" might yet fail the Allies on Normandy's beaches.

That July afternoon was D plus 35. On June 6, D-Day, the largest armada in history had crossed the English Channel, landing nine divisions of sea and airborne troops in a sweeping assault upon Nazi-occupied France that put the Allies on the road to victory.

Eisenhower penned such notes on the eves of other amphibious operations, secretly tearing each one up afterward. "I told him I wanted it," Butcher would later recall. Ike gave in, reluctantly.

The sheet of beige paper -- at 41/2 by 7 inches, it looks as if it came from a notepad -- is brittle and fragile, like many of the once strapping young men who advanced through surf and bullets, each carrying 75 pounds of equipment. The paper doesn't carry the letterhead of the Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force, which Eisenhower was. It's cheaply made. The four sentences on it are written in pencil, and were composed on a portable table.

Archivists at the Dwight D. Eisenhower Library & Museum in Abilene, Kan., call it the "In Case of Failure" message. It's safeguarded in an acid-free folder in the security vault there, a veteran, too, of dark days when freedom hung in the balance.

The gift of freedom is not free.  If you see a member of the military today, say thank you.

One of the claims being made by the Obama administration as they seek to justify the fact that they are going to ask for higher taxes is that America now has the lowest tax rates in sixty years.  That is not quite true.

On Friday Investors.com posted a story explaining exactly what has happened to America's tax rates and revenues since 2008. 

The article points out:

"It's true that tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product have fallen in the past three years.

"They were 17.5% in 2008 and 14.9% in 2009 and 2010.

"But this is simply a result of the prolonged recession and terrible recovery that killed incomes and corporate profits, blowing a hole in federal revenues. The amount of money raised through the individual income tax fell 21% from 2007 to 2009, while corporate tax payments plunged 63%.

"That's neither a sign that we're undertaxed nor an indictment of the Bush tax cuts. In fact, tax revenues under Bush hit 18.5% of GDP by 2007. That's higher than the post-World War II average of 17.8%."

It is interesting to me that when President Bush cut taxes, tax revenues increased as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product.   The article points out that corporations and the wealthiest 5% of Americans pay 41 percent of all federal revenues.  Since these people were the hardest hit by the recession, tax revenues have gone down.  The article also reminds us that almost half of all Americans pay no income tax at all.

The reduction is federal revenues has to do with the fact that the tax burden is laid so heavily on corporations and wealthy taxpayers.  If the burder were more spread out, two things would happen--the revenue would not change so drastically when there was an economic downturn, and the American public might begin to notice and complain about the amount of federal spending.  When half of all Americans 'have no skin in the game,' there is no incentive to cut spending.  Since spending is the major part of our deficit problem, the distribution of tax liability might be a good thing to look at to find a solution.

This is a portion of a Michael Yon post on Facebook.

The quotes below are Michael Yon's comments he posted with the picture:

"Have been in many briefings. Some very high level, others private with with general officers, colonels and others. Good prep for the field. Will meet with General Petraeus privately after lunch. What's standing out so far is how much SoF are partnered with Afghan SF, and how much they are damaging the enemy. (Like yesterday.) Check out these numbers from last 90 day period:"

I have no idea what the source of this picture is, but I love it!!!!!

This story is based on a Townhall.com story in the June issue of Townhall Magazine and a CBS News story from March.  This is one of the stories I occasionally post that I have a very limited understanding of.  In this case, I am comfortable with that because it seems as if very few people actually know (or are willing to admit) what actually happened.

Townhall Magazine reports that in 2205 the Bush administration began a pilot program called Project Gunrunner. 

The article reports: 

"Project Gunrunner allowed ATF agents to watch the purchase of weapons by "straw men" outside American gun shops, and purchasers were immediately apprehended before crossing back into Mexico. But starting early in 2009, ATF's actions through Operation Fast and Furious had the opposite result: They actually allowed and encouraged the sale of weapons to known straw-man purchasers for the cartels and let the guns flow across the southern border into Mexico."

The problem here is not the original program--it is what it morphed into. 

The CBS story reports:

"Documents show the inevitable result: The guns that ATF let go began showing up at crime scenes in Mexico.  And as ATF stood by watching thousands of weapons hit the streets...the Fast and Furious group supervisor noted the escalating Mexican violence.

"One e-mail noted, "958 killed in March 2010...most violent month since 2005."  The same e-mail notes, "Our subjects purchased 359 firearms during March alone," including "numerous Barret .50 caliber rifles."

"(Federal agent John ) Dodson feels that ATF was partly to blame for the escalating violence in Mexico and on the border.  "I even asked them if they could see the correleation between the two," he said.  "The more our guys buy, the more violence we're having down there.""

The increasing violence that might have been avoided seems to be the problem here.  Representative Darrell Issa requested documents related to Operation Fast and Furious on March 16, 2011, from ATF acting Director Kenneth Melson.  Because of his being stonewalled by the Department of Justice, Representative Issa issued a subpoena on March 31.  The documents were supposed to be given to Representative Issa by April 13, but Director Melson refused to turn the documents over, citing 'on-going criminal investigations.' 

I don't know exactly what went on here.  I do know that Congress has the right to see the subpoenaed documents and share them with the American people.  I am also very unhappy that most of the media has overlooked this story.

In case you have not yet seen it, this is the link to the commercial showing granny being pushed over a cliff by a person resembling Paul Ryan put out by the Agenda Project.  The implication is supposed to be that the Ryan budget will kill old people by changing Medicare.  That is not true, but the ad wants you to believe that it is true.  There are numerous articles on the subject of what the Ryan plan is and what the Ryan plan isn't on this website.  You can find them easily using the search engine.  However, the truth about who is actually taking aim at granny is slowly coming out.

Yesterday, CNS News posted an article about some Congressional hearings that were going on.  On Friday, Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs Cass Sunstein testified before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations about the Obama administration's plans for reviewing and reducing federal regulations.

During that testimony, Mr. Sunstein was asked about a paper he wrote when he was a professor at the University of Chicago titled "Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay."

According to the article, Mr. Sunstein wrote:

""Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the 'value of a statistical life year' (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children," the 2003 paper said.

""I urge that the government should indeed focus on statistical life-years rather than statistical lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.""

Mr. Sunstein said that the paper was an acedemic exercise and not an indication of government policy.  However, Rep. Michael G. Burgess (R-Texas) pointed out that Mr. Sunstein would have input into the establishment of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, part of the health care overhaul law targeting cost reductions for Medicare.  This is not a comforting thought.

The article at CNS News further reports:

"The 2003 Sunstein report, "Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay," said, "In protecting safety, health, and the environment, government has increasingly relied on cost-benefit analysis. In undertaking cost-benefit analysis, the government has monetized risks of death through the idea of 'value of a statistical life' (VSL), currently assessed at about $6.1 million."

""Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the 'value of a statistical life year (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children. I urge that the government should indeed focus on statistical life-years rather than statistical live," Sunstein's 2003 paper continued.

""A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. Nor does a focus on life-years run afoul of ethical limits on cost-benefit analysis. It is relevant in this connection that every old person was once young, and that if all goes well, young people will eventually be old," Sunstein added."

"...Under the life-years approach, older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older. This is not an injustice."

Wow.  The paper Mr. Sunstein wrote is only eight years old.  I really do not want that kind of philosophy making medical decisions about our elderly population.  It is not Paul Ryan who is pushing granny off the cliff.

The economic reports coming out this week have not been positive.  There is fear of a double-dip recession with very little explanation of why that might happen.  Well, Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal has a theory.

Mr. Henninger suggests that some of the blame might fall on President Obama,  not only for his policies, but for his speech at George Washington University in April. 

Mr. Henninger's article points out:

"The day before that speech, all Washington expected Mr. Obama to make a major policy statement about the big deficit-reduction debate then unfolding. Agree or disagree, Paul Ryan's budget released the week before was all about policy. The Republicans were actually offering to take part-ownership of the economy by spending the year in dense discussions about the deficit and spending.

"Expectations raised, the president contributed nothing. Instead he dumped ridicule and derision on the Republican leadership seated before him. With that speech, Mr. Obama kicked off his 2012 presidential campaign, and in so doing politicized the economy."

Actions have consequences.  The article also cites some of the policies and regulations that the Obama Administration has put in place that strangle the private sector as the government sector grows exponentially, gobbling up the private sector along the way. 

Some of the consequences of politicizing the economy:

Congressman Jeff Landry released the following statement on Wednesday after he declined the President's invitation to the White House this morning:

""I have respectfully declined the President's invitation to the White House today. I don't intend to spend my morning being lectured to by a President whose failed policies have put our children and grandchildren in a huge burden of debt. Over the past two years, President Obama and congressional Democrats have overseen the largest budget deficits in U.S. history. On top of that, the President's budget adds $1.3 trillion to our national debt every year for the next ten years - a budget that failed to muster a single vote in the Senate. Until the President produces a responsible deficit reduction plan, I'm not going to the White House to negotiate with myself. Our conference has put out for months where we would start the process. The President has done nothing, just like he has for the people of the Gulf Coast. For months, the Louisiana delegation has sent the President numerous requests to meet with him or his chief of staff concerning the de facto moratorium issued in the Gulf of Mexico, a de facto moratorium that has driven gas prices up and now threatens to derail economic recovery; the President hasn't even had the courtesy to write us a note back. I refuse to partake in his political grandstanding that will ultimately do nothing for debt reduction and job creation.""

On Wednesday the Washington Examiner reported on the meeting between President Obama and the Republicans. 

One Republican commented:

""Unfortunately what we did not hear from the president is a specific plan of his to deal with the debt crisis," Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, told reporters outside the White House. Twenty yards away, the full House Republican Conference was filing out of the 90-minute meeting and heading toward two buses that would take them back to Capitol Hill."

There were other comments made after the meeting.  Paul Ryan stated that he had asked the President to stop calling his plan to cut Medicare spending a 'voucher plan' because that was a misrepresentation of the plan.  Eric Canton pointed out the need to stop overregulating the private sector and allow businesses to grow.  The Republicans also restated their desire not to raise taxes but to cut spending to deal with the deficit.

It is very difficult to discuss serious financial matters when Washington has entered into campaign mode.  I hope some of our national leaders will grow up before the country goes bankrupt.

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line about America's current energy policies.  The article points out that Canadian oil production is forecast to jump 68 percent to 4.7 million barrels per day by 2025. 

The article at Power Line quotes the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers:

"The rise in production from 2.8 billion barrels in 2010, largely in the Athabasca oil sands of Western Canada, reflects an improved investment climate, more robust commodity prices and increased market demand, the association said."

Most of us are glad that we are buying oil from Canada rather than from hostile nations, but we need to remember that the improved investment climate caused by Canadian drilling could also be ours but for government energy policies.

Michael Bromwich, Director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE), testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform yesterday.  As usual, he attempted to defend the Obama Administration's energy policies.  As usual, you need to look past the numbers he was quoting to see what is actually happening.  For instance, according to the article:

"In his written testimony, Mr. Bromwich claims that shallow water drilling permits "have averaged 6 per month since October 2010, compared to an average of 8 per month in 2009." He is correct. However, he forgets to mention that shallow water permits granted in 2008 averaged 16.8 per month. Mr. Bromwich's statement highlights the drastic decrease in shallow water permitting since President Obama came into office. ...

"But the administration's shallow water permitting record is fantastic when compared to deepwater permits. BOEMRE has only approved two permits to drill a new well in waters deeper than 500 feet since the end of the moratorium."

It's time to use our own resources.  Be aware as a voter that drilling in America could make a drastic difference in unemployment.  The current unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.2 percent.  That is due to the development of the Bakken Shale reserve which is causing an oil boom in the state.  If you would like to see that kind of prosperity spread to the rest of the nation, vote for people who will allow America to develop her resources.

Today, Dorothy Rabinowitz posted an article at the Wall Street Journal stating her ideas of what the Republican candidate for President will have to do to win in 2012.  It's an impressive list.

Ms. Rabinowitz points out that the Republican candidate will have to be able to talk about Social Security and Medicare without scaring the electoriate.  He (or she) will be aided in this by the fact that many Americans fear Obamacare more than they fear redesigning Social Security or Medicare.  Ms. Rabinowitz points out that Americans are more concerned about jobs than about discussions about the size of government.  She reminds us that the Republican candidate should talk about the Justice Department and how President Obama has politicized it.  He should remind us of the effort to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in America.  He should also remind us that the Attorney General has still not dropped charges against two CIA employees who used enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorists.

According to Ms. Rabinowitz, the Republican candidate needs a coherent foreign policy (and the ability to explain it clearly).  The candidate might remind Americans of some of the things the Obama administration has done in the area of foreign policy that have hurt allies and broken promises--cancelling the planned missile defense system that had been promised to Poland and the Czech Republic, and the State Department announcement in March 2010 by Hillary Clinton that stated America no longer supported the British in the matter of the Falkland Islands.  The State Department then began referring to the Falklands as the Malvinas (the Argentinian name).

According to Ms. Rabinowitz, the Republican candidate needs to remind us that America is something we can take pride in.  He will need to remind us that even though America is not perfect, there is not a more perfect place on earth.  That is the candidate we need to defeat President Obama in 2012.

Personal success depends on a lot of things--opportunities, ambition, education, self-discipline, and a willingness to work.  I am sure there are other factors, but to me, those are the major ones.  Anyway, America was founded on the idea that success in this country was available to anyone who was willing to work for it.  Aside from the numerous government regulations that complicate starting a new business, success is still available to anyone with the ambition, drive and perseverance to pursue it.  However, somewhere along the line, the idea has crept in that success should be punished in order to improve the financial situations of those who are not willing to work for it.  I am a firm believer in charity, but I think that we have traded charity for dependency and enabling.  Unfortunately, there is a recent poll to confirm that.

Yesterday Gallop reported the results of one of their recent polls.  According to the Gallop polling data, 47 percent of Americans believe that the wealth in the United States should be redistributed by heavily taxing the rich.  This is a very interesting number when you consider that according to Smart Money, in 2009 an estimated 47% of U. S. households did not pay any federal income tax.

The poll results showed a difference in philosophy between the parties on the redistribution of wealth--Democrats were 71 percent for redistribution, Republicans were 69 percent against.

If you follow the link to the Gallop website, you can see all of the questions asked in the poll and how the results broke down.  The thing that is of concern to me in this poll is that there is a significant segment of our population that would rather take something from someone else than earn it themselves.  That is not a good sign for the future of America.

Beginning sometime around February of this year, we heard stories about an Arab Spring beginning with the 'democratization' of Egypt.  I suspect Arab Spring is in the process of turning into a long hot summer.  Evidently, I am not alone in that idea.

Cal Thomas posted an article today at Townhall.com commenting on the Arab Spring. 

Mr. Thomas points out:

"At its recently concluded G-8 meeting of industrial economies in Deauville, France, Western governments pledged $40 billion to "newly democratic" nations in North Africa and the Middle East. One might as well throw money at Chicago and hope for electoral reform so the dead are no longer allowed to vote on Election Day."

Mr. Thomas points out that if money were the answer to bringing democracy to this area, OPEC has more than enough money to do the job. 

Mr. Thomas reminds us:

"Democracy doesn't spring up of its own accord. It must have a base from which it can blossom. That was a point made by Timur Kuran, a professor of economics and political science at Duke University, in a recent op-ed column for The New York Times entitled "The Weak Foundations of Arab Democracy." Kuran wrote, "Democracy requires checks and balances, and it is largely through civil society that citizens protect their rights as individuals, force policymakers to accommodate their interests, and limit abuses of state authority. Civil society also promotes a culture of bargaining and gives future leaders the skills to articulate ideas, form coalitions and govern.""

The countries involved are very willing to take our money.  The are not necessarily willing to take any real steps to form democracies.  In Egypt, Coptic Christians are still being persecuted and the Muslim Brotherhood is consolidating its power.  It might be a good time to remember that one of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood, openly stated in its charter, is the establishment of a worldwide Muslim caliphate. 

In his conclusion, Mr. Thomas reminds us:

"In C.S. Lewis' "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe," Narnia has been transformed by a white witch into a land where it is "always winter, but never Christmas." That pretty much describes the lands of North Africa and the Middle East where the "white witch" is radical Islam and spring will never arrive as long as it holds sway over the minds and hearts of the people."

I would love to see a true Arab Spring.  I just don't think it will happen.  The thing these events do remind me of is the unique conditions (and people) that created America.  The events in America in the late 1700's moved us to freedom.  We were blessed to have leaders who put the good of the country and the value of freedom over their own personal ambitions.  I don't see a Thomas Jefferson or a George Washington in the current Middle East.  America was blessed by these men, and we need to remember that.  I wish we could project freedom and democracy on to Egypy, Yemen, Libya, Syria, etc., but we can't.  Until those countires accept the idea of equality among people and the concept of freedom of religion, there will be no democracy in that region.

Yesterday John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line reminding us that the Democrats in Congress have failed to produce a budget.  They have been very quick to denounce and vote down the Paul Ryan budget, but they have not produced an alternative. 

The Washington Post pointed out on Tuesday:

"Since passage of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, Congress has failed to pass a budget resolution only five times, and until last year, a budget resolution always passed at least one chamber.

"Now, for the first time in a decade, the Senate Budget Committee isn't even considering a budget. Two weeks ago, Chairman Kent Conrad said he would "defer" action on the budget, which was due April 15, to see what comes of debt-reduction talks led by Vice President Biden."

It's time to stop the name calling, look at the financial situation of the country, and get to work. 

The Power Line article concludes:

"As the Democrats fiddle, America's economy burns. Today's bad news--private sector job creation falling, home prices dropping, food and energy costs sky-high--sent the stock market into a tailspin. One Wall Street analyst says that "[w]e're on the verge of a great, great depression." The Democrats' economic policies have failed, and pretty much everyone knows it. For them to fail even to propose a budget is, as Milbank says, a dereliction of duty. One can only hope that the voters will punish them for it."

Meanwhile, the focus has changed to the debate over raising the debt ceiling.  Washington is NOT broken--it is simply in need of some leadership.

The Ryan Plan for Medicare has gotten a lot of publicity lately.  There is even an ad showing a Paul Ryan lookalike pushing granny off the cliff.  But it is really hard to find out exactly what the plan is if your only source of information is major media outlets. 

Today's Daily Caller posted an article contrasting some of the myths about what Paul Ryan's budget proposal means to Medicare with the actual facts.  The artice takes the statements of Democratic National Chairman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Fla, made on "Face the Nation" on Sunday and contrasts them with the truth.

Ms. Wasserman Schultz accuses the Ryan plan of abandoning all people under the age of 55.  She states that the plan 'throws them to the wolves' and puts them at the mercy of insurance companies that will deny them coverage and drop them for pre-existing conditions.  The facts tell a different story.

The Ryan Plan explicitly forbids insurance companies from denying coverage to anyone eligible for Medicare.  The Ryan Plan provides subsidies beginning in 2022 to help seniors pay for their insurance.  It also has provisions to insure that insurance companies insure all Medicare recipients--not just the healthiest.  No government plan is perfect, but Paul Ryan has attempted to reform Medicare to insure its success in the future and to bring it closer to the concept of competition in health insurance plans in order to reduce costs for everyone.  I am sure that there will be changes needed along the way if the Ryan Plan is adopted, but I suspect they would be minor, and I suspect that his plan will keep Medicare solvent long into the future.

None of the current claims made by Democrat leadership are valid.  Those claims are even less valid when you consider that Obamacare drastically cuts Medicare.

On May 20, I reported at RightWingGranny that:

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."

As the budget debate continues, I would strongly advise that you look past the MediScare tactics being used by the Democrats, and look up the facts for yourself.  We are being seriously mislead by people attempting to gain political advantage.  It is up to the voters to find the truth and vote accordingly.

The Hill reported yesterday that the House of Representative voted against a 'clean' bill to raise the debt ceiling.  The vote was 318-97, with 82 Democrats joining every Republican, not to raise the debt ceiling.  If this was, as Democrats charge, a purely symbolic, political vote, then there were an awful lot of Democrats who joined in. 

John Hinderaker at Power LIne pointed out yesterday that Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and new DNC chief Debbie Wasserman-Schultz voted with the Republicans.  Obviously they are watching the polls and understand that a large percentage of Americans are disgusted with the level of spending in Washington.

The article at The Hill reports:

"The Treasury breached the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling on May 16, but the administration says it can stave off a first-ever default until Aug. 2.

"Obama has invited the entire House Republican Conference to the White House on Wednesday; Carney said the president wanted to "hear and listen to their ideas, their concerns." He will meet with House Democrats on Thursday. The Biden group will hold its next meeting June 6."

It will be very interesting to see what the bill to deal with the debt ceiling looks like when it is eventually passed. 

I Watch, the website of the Center for Public Integrity, posted an article about the increase in the number of government limosines in use over the first two years of the Obama administration. 

According to the article:

"But the number of limos owned by Uncle Sam increased by 73 percent during the first two years of the Obama administration, according to an analysis of records by iWatch News."

The majority of the increase is said to be in the State Department.  The article points out:

"The increase in limos comes to light on the heels of an executive order from President Obama last week that charges agencies to increase the fuel efficiency of their fleets."

If you are looking for a place to start cutting government spending...

It is amazing to me that an administration that makes such a fuss about increasing the mileage standards for American cars and driving 'green' cars is increasing the number of limosines used be the government.  It really does seem as if there is one set of rules for the 'ruling class' and another set of rules for us common people.

Erick Stakelbeck at CBN News posted a story today about Fetullah Gülen, who has been called the world's top public intellectual and the face of moderate Islam.  The 70-year-old Muslim leader directs a global Islamic movement from the Pennsylvania mountains. 

The article reports:

""It's not just a religious movement; it's the Fetullah Gülen movement. They call themselves that. So it is, you can say, a cult. It is a highly personalized movement," Ariel Cohen, a Middle East analyst with the Heritage Foundation, said. Cohen has been tracking the Gülen movement closely."

The article also reports that French-Turkish scholar Bayram Balci claims that the Gülen movement has three goals:

"the Islamization of the Turkish nationalist ideology; the Turkification of Islam; and the Islamization of modernity.""

The article reports:

"Currently, there are about 125 Gülen schools spread out over 25 states. One school in Philadelphia receives some $3 million annually in taxpayer money."

This is part of the government's outreach to so-called moderate Muslims.  Meanwhile the schools select the students they feel will be most likely to spread Islam and the concept of close ties between religion and state, and the United States taxpayer underwrites the effort.

It's not news to anyone that there will be a presidential campaign in 2012.  This silly season seems to have begun early in this election cycle.  I am sure there are Republicans out there saying stupid things, but the air-headed statements award of the moment has to go to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee.

Yesterday CNS News reported on some of Ms. Wasserman's recent statements:

• recently Ms. Wasserman denounced Republicans last week for believing illegal immigration "should in fact be a crime.
• recently Ms. Wasserman stated "If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars; they would have let the auto industry in America go down the tubes."  It should be noted that according to Florida motor vehicle records, Ms. Wasserman drives a Japanese car.
• "One of the most tremendous sources of pride for me is that I am the first Jewish woman to represent the state of Florida in Congress. And another tremendous source of pride is that I am a pro-Israel Jewish member of Congress and I probably support a president that is pro-Israel," Wasserman Schultz said.

• The new chairwoman has made a number of attention grabbing comments. In an April 6 interview on MSNBC, Wasserman Shultz voiced her opposition to the proposal by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to reduce the deficit by $6 trillion in 10 years.

• This plan would literally be a death trap for some seniors," Wasserman Schultz said.Last week she said on MSNBC, that the passage of the health care law has strengthened Medicare.

• "In fact, we added 12 years of solvency to Medicare and ensure that it would be better for senior," she said on Andrea Mitchell Reports on May 25.

  That's contrary to the assessment of the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan accounting arm of Congress that predicted the Medicare trust fund will be exhausted by 2020 at the current path, almost a decade sooner than the last year's forecast.

It is amazing to me that Ms. Wasserman sees President Obama as pro-Israel.  The path the President has started down in terms of creating a Palestinian state is a recipe for the destruction of Israel.  It is also interesting that she makes statements about Medicare that can easily be proven false.  I also wonder why she feels that illegal immigrants are called illegal if they are not committing a crime.

I suspect Ms. Wasserman might make this a much more interesting political season than it might otherwise be.  She's almost as good as Howard Dean!