July 2011 Archives

Union Thuggery

| | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Townhall.com is reporting that United States District Judge Claude Hilton, acting in the eastern district of Virginia, has ruled that the French-based food service and facilities management company Sodexo can proceed with an extortion claim against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU).

The union is accused of using its close ties to the Obama Administration to harass the company.  Sodexo is a non-union company where only 18,000 of the company's 98,000 qualified employees have chosen to join the SEIU.  The company is charging the SEIU with attempting to unlawfully unionize employees and increase revenue in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

According to the article:

"According to the National Legal and Policy Center only 18,000 of the company's 98,000 qualified employees have chosen to join the SEIU. In retaliation, says the NLPC, the union has carried out a campaign of intimidation that includes:

  • threw plastic roaches onto food at a high-profile event catered by Sodexo;
  • scared hospital patients by insinuating that Sodexo food contained bugs, rat droppings, mold and flies;
  • sneaked into elementary schools to avoid security;
  • violated lobbying laws to steer business away from the company; and
  • threatened Sodexo USA employees with public exposure of alleged wrongdoing."

Obviously, if the charges are true, the SEIU is breaking the law. 

The article concludes:

"On July 1st the Competitive Enterprise Institute published the SEIU's plan "to launch a national campaign of economic strong-arming and sabotage. Their plan envisions mortgage and student loan strikes and bank boycotts. Also contemplated are acts of harassment and intimidation directed against bank officials, corporate heads and public officials deemed to be enemies of the people."

"So if indeed the SEIU has been guilty of illegal activities such as using government influence to threaten or intimidate companies or individuals, the question is how much does the Obama administration know and how high does it go?"    

The Obama administration is one whose election was financed by unions; therefore, it is not unusual that they would expect something in return.  However, it would be nice if they showed some respect for the law.  

Today's U.K. Daily Mail is reporting that the FBI believes it has finally caught DB Cooper.  For anyone under the age of 40, DB Cooper boarded an airplane in Portland, Oregon, in 1971, took over the airplane on the way to Seattle, Washington, demanded and got four parachutes and $200,000 and demanded to be flown to Mexico.  Somewhere along the way, he and his money jumped out of the airplane.  He has been missing ever since.  In 1980, $5,800 of the money he was given was found in the Columbia River.

There was a man who was suspected of being DB Cooper who was killed after a prison break in 1974, but he did not fit the description given by the flight attendants. 

The FBI is looking at fingerprints and DNA evidence to link the suspect to the crime.  Stay tuned. 

Why we need to repeal Obamacare and generally cut spending.  The chart is from the August 8 issue of the Weekly Standard.

 

 

Federal Spending Graph

The article concludes:

"For Republicans, spending cuts have been the top priority, and rightly so. But the real problem is spending on health-entitlement programs. If that category of spending is not brought under the discipline of an effective marketplace, then American health care, and our economy as a whole, will be on the road to ruin.

"Genuine health care reform therefore needs to be at the core of the Republican case for fiscal sanity​--​a case that in turn must be front and center in the 2012 election. That election may well be the only real chance we have left to avoid a genuine debt crisis and set America back on the path to enduring prosperity and strength."

Americans need to stand strong in their support of serious spending cuts and on the repeal of Obamacare.

Egypt Goes Sour

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Yesterday The Lede, the blog at the New York Times, reported on a rally in Tahrir Square that was supposed to be a protest against the current military government.  

The article reported:

"But the turnout was lopsided, dominated by members of religious movements, ranging from the most conservative, the Salafists, to the relatively moderate Muslim Brotherhood." 

The first thing to understand here is that there is nothing moderate about the Muslim Brotherhood.  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. They have no intentions of allowing a western-style democracy to take place anywhere in the Middle East--particularly in Egypt, which has in the past been an ally of the United States. 

The article further reported:

"According to The Associated Press, instead of chanting "The people want to topple the regime," a slogan heard at protests across the Arab world this year, from Tahrir Square to Tunisia, demonstrators called out, "The people want to implement Sharia," a strict code of Islamic law."

Sharie law is not compatible with democracy.  Egypt is only the beginning of the Arab Spring's turning from what appeared to be a bridge to freedom to a bridge to a caliphate.

Harry Reid made this statement yesterday after the House of Representatives passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling and cut spending:

"It is time for Republicans to stop the political games and embrace compromise."

Senator Reid made this statement right after the bill was tabled to prevent the Senate from taking it up and discussing it.

I am not a strategist.  I don't play chess because I can't sit still and concentrate long enough to finish a game.  I barely play checkers, and I am not very good at hearts.  That is one of the reasons I am having so much trouble figuring out what in the world is going on in the debt celing debate.

The Hill reported today that Speaker Boehner will add a balanced-budget amendment to his proposed debt ceiling legislation in order to win the support of conservatives in the House of Representatives.  Senator Harry Reid has stated that such a bill will be dead on arrival.  I am assuming that a stonger bill coming out of the House will give Republicans more negotiating room and that Harry Reid is just making statements for the base, but I really do not know where the truth is in any of this. 

The article reports:

"Republican lawmakers say the Boehner framework would still pave the way for the debt limit to be raised through the 2012 election in two chunks. But it would also mandate that the second hike of the ceiling could only occur after a balanced-budget amendment passed both chambers of Congress and went to the states for ratification."

The current crop of Washington politicians (with the exception of the Tea Party) have no interest in balancing the budget--it would limit their power.  They have no interest in simplifying the tax code--that would also limit their power.  I hate to be cynical, but I truly feel that what we are currently watching in Washington is an elaborately staged dance between the Democrats and the Republican establishment.  The Tea Party was not invited.  I don't support a third party, but I am beginning to believe that the solution to Washington is more Tea Party, less Democrats and less Republican establishment.  I have a feeling that no one is going to be satisfied with whatever solution is reached on the debt ceiling.

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that a retired policeman who worked in a gun shop alerted police to a man that he felt was asking some strange questions.  This led to the arrest of Pfc. Naser Jason Abdo

The article reports on Pfc Abdo:

"He'll likely face federal charges after FBI agents found a large amount of bomb-making materials in his hotel room not far from the base.

"The 21-year-old had gone AWOL from Fort Campbell, Kentucky after refusing deployment to Afghanistan on religious grounds and then being charged with possession of child pornography during his discharge process."

The article further reports:

"Abdo appeared in a local gunshop Tuesday afternoon, according to Greg Ebert, a retired police officer now working there. Ebert said Abdo purchased shotgun shells, a magazine and six one-pound canisters of gunpowder.

"But he then asked Ebert numerous questions indicating little knowledge of the gunpowder."

At that point, Mr. Ebert checked with his boss and then alerted police.  Thanks to Mr. Ebert, we avoided another massacre at Fort Hood.

I am not sure whether two incidents can be considered a pattern, but I wonder if when a soldier refuses to deploy because he is a Mulsim he should be looked at more closely.  But for the actions of Mr. Ebert, our military was going to be attacked again by a terrorist member of the military.

On Tuesday the Washington Times posted an article reminding us that Iran has been holding two American hostages since July 31, 2009.  The third hostage, Sarah Shourd, was released in September of last year.  The three were arrested while hiking near the poorly marked border between Iraq and Iran and charged with spying. 

The article states:

"The two Americans are being held in Evin Prison. Tehran's central clearing house for dissidents, political prisoners and others who fall afoul of the Islamic regime. Miss Shourd was released in September 2010 after enduring 410 days of solitary confinement and after Iran was paid half a million dollars, which Tehran called bail money but was more akin to ransom. After her release, she told of beatings, isolation, threats of summary execution and other mistreatment at the hands of Iranian authorities."

When America has a weak President, the world is a more dangerous place for everyone.  President Obama needs to make the release of these two young men a priority.  There is no evidence showing that is currently being done.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted a story entitled, "The Road to a Downgrade."   These are two graphs from that article.  The article reviews the history that brought us to this point, beginning with FDR.  I strongly suggest you read the entire article for the total picture. 

1downgrade

1downgrade

The article reminds us of some of the false information currently circulating:

"On Monday night Mr. Obama blamed President George W. Bush's "two wars" for the debt buildup. But national defense spending was 7.4% of GDP and 42.8% of outlays in 1965, and only 4.8% of GDP and 20.1% of federal outlays in 2010. Defense has not caused the debt crisis.

"Many on the left still blame Ronald Reagan, but the debt increase in the 1980s financed a robust economic expansion and victory in the Cold War. Debt held by the public at the end of the Reagan years was much lower as a share of GDP (41% in 1988 and still only 40.3% in 2008) compared to the estimated 72% in fiscal 2011. That Cold War victory made possible the peace dividend that allowed Bill Clinton to balance the budget in the 1990s by cutting defense spending to 3% of GDP from nearly 6% in 1988."

These are just two of the things to keep in mind as the debate on the debt celing continues.

The article concludes:

"Yet Mr. Obama and most Democrats still oppose any serious reform of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This insistence on no reform reinforces the notion that our entitlement state is too big to afford but also too big to change politically. This is how a AAA country becomes AA, the first step on the march to Greece."

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.

Investors.com posted an article yesterday about Speaker Boehner's plan to deal with the debt ceiling.  They acknowledged (along with most of us) that the plan is not perfect, but they also realize the practical aspects of getting a bill through Congress. 

One of the basic facts the article points out:

"Despite the widespread notion that raising tax rates automatically means collecting more revenue for the government, history says otherwise.

"As far back as the 1920s, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon pointed out that the government received a very similar amount of revenue from high-income earners at low tax rates as it did at tax rates several times as high."

This has to do with the fact that high-income earners often have a better understanding of how money works than the rest of us and can put their money in places that protect it from taxes, such as overseas investments, which do very little to increase tax revenue in America.

The artice reminds us:

"The most basic fact of life is that we can make our choices only among the alternatives actually available. It is not idealism to ignore the limits of one's power. Nor is it selling out one's principles to recognize those limits at a given time and place, and get the best deal possible under those conditions.

"That still leaves the option of working toward getting a better deal later, when the odds are more in your favor."

It is time for the Tea Party to step back, take a deep breath, and prepare for 2012.  Anything else will insure that President Obama will be a two-term President and America as we know it will no longer exist.  I realize that is a strong statement, but look how much damage President Obama has done to the Constitution in two and a half years.  This is the time to be practical, even though it is tempting to hold out for radical spending reductions--they are not going to happen with the current Senate and current President.  I wish we could slash and burn the budget, but we really can't right now.  Hopefully, there will be a time for that after 2012.  Rome was not built in a day, and the leviathan that the American government has become will not go down easily.

It really isn't Bush's fault.  Or the tax breaks, or the wars--its the spending--mostly since 2007.

Power Line recently ran a contest to see who could best illustrate the impact runaway spending will have on America if it is not stopped.  This is the link to one of the best entries (Digging A Hole).  It did not win, but it definitely gets the point across.  One of the best comments on the video stated that it gives new meaning to the words "shovel ready."

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that it had obtained documents showing that top aides to Iowa Democrat Senator Tom Harkin collaborated with a special interest group and a law firm with a financial interest in the matter to edit the written and oral testimony of a witness at a key investigative hearing last year.  The witness was Josh Pruyn, a disillusioned former employee of the for-profit Westwood College online.

Senator Harkin was investigating for-profit schools. There are also questions about a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report commissioned by Senator Harkin that was also unveiled at the hearing in which Pruyn testified.  Mr. Pruyn testified about the high pressure tactics used to enroll students in the school, but the fact that he was coached by people who would be financially impacted by his testimony undermines his credibility.  The Daily Caller has emails and document revisions showing the roll of the James, Hoyer, Newcomer & Smiljanich law firm in shaping Mr. Pruyn's testimony.  His testimony was also influenced by officials of the Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS).

The article reports:

"Despite TICAS's relatively small $2.3 million budget in 2009, the group was tremendously influential in pushing strict new regulations on the for-profit colleges, finalized June 2, with its former president, Robert Shireman, joining the Obama administration in 2009 as a top deputy to Education Sec. Arne Duncan."

The danger here is the concept of using the government (Congress and the White House) to pick winners and losers in a particular area of the economy.  This is more Chicago thuggery entering into the business world.  If for-profit colleges can be put under scrutiny by Congress and made to look bad, colleges that have administrators and professors that support the current administration can increase their share of students and profitability.  Keep in mind that even though many private colleges are not declared as 'for-profit', they have teachers to pay, buildings to maintain, etc.  If some of the competition is eliminated, they may be more successful and a little freer to raise their student tuition and fees without worry about being undercut by for-profit schools.

There may or may not be something to the charges against Westwood College, but there is definitely something wrong with tampering with a witness preparing to testify before Congress.

This story is based on three sources.  I will list them as I refer to the information they provide. 

Mark Hemingway in his blog at the Weekly Standard reported today that:

"At a lengthy hearing on ATF's controversial gunwalking operation today, a key ATF manager told Congress he discussed the case with a White House National Security staffer as early as September 2010. The communications were between ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix office, Bill Newell, and White House National Security Director for North America Kevin O'Reilly. Newell said the two are longtime friends. The content of what Newell shared with O'Reilly is unclear and wasn't fully explored at the hearing."

This is the first official testimony that I have seen that confirms that the White House was informed as to what was going on with Operation Fast and Furious.  This calls into question many statements made by the President and his Administration.

CBS News reported yesterday:

"It's the first time anyone has publicly stated that a White House official had any familiarity with ATF's operation Fast and Furious, which allowed thousands of weapons to fall into the hands of suspected traffickers for Mexican drug cartels in an attempt to gain intelligence. It's unknown as to whether O'Reilly shared information with anybody else at the White House."

It will be interesting to see if the White House continues to deny knowledge of the operation. 

Meanwhile, today the Daily Caller reported:

"Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agent Brian Newell continues to deny Operation Fast and Furious allowed for guns to be "walked" into Mexico."

House oversight committee chairman Representative Darrell Issa, a California Republican, had a very appropriate response to this testimony.  The Daily Caller reported his response:

""You're entitled to your own opinions, not to your own facts," Issa responded. "But there comes a point when I go, "Wait a second: 730 weapons bought by a man who had no money. Every penny he bought with he had to get from somebody.' You knew that at some point. You knew who was buying them and you allowed it to continue.""

This story does not seem to be going away.

Car Wreck

| | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night I was privileged to attend an event sponsored by the Liberty Clubhouse that featured Mark Ragsdale, author of CAR WRECK, as the speaker.  Mr. Ragsdale grew up in a car dealership family and owned a number of car dealerships at various times.  Mr. Ragsdale has served as Director for the Massachusetts State Automobile Dealers Association, as Chairman of a National Dealer 20 group, and as a member of the Kia National Dealer Council.  He spoke about how the government has invaded the free market in the auto industry and the impact that has had on the industry and the consumer.

Mr. Ragsdale spoke of the impact the credit market has on the auto industry--both on dealerships and consumers.  He pointed out that the credit market has been manipulated by the government and that a manipulated market has no predictability, making it very difficult for dealerships to plan for the future. 

Mr. Ragsdale also spoke about the government bailout of Chrysler and General Motors.  He talked about the laws of bankruptcy being violated in the Chrysler bailout (see rightwinggranny.com article of May 8, 2009, for further information).  He also explained how "Cash for Clunkers" had a detrimental effect on consumers--creating a bubble in the used car market because 800,000 cars that were road-worthy, insured, and fully paid off (the requirements for turning in a 'clunker') were destroyed.   He reported that the average cost of a new car before government intervention in the auto industry (TARP) was $26,500.  The average cost now is $29,500. 

Mr. Ragsdale also illustrated the myth of the hybrid car.  He pointed out that a hybrid car begins to make economic sense when gas is $7 a gallon, but not before.  One thing he mentioned that I was not aware of is the fact that after 10 years or 100,000 miles, the batteries in hybrid vehicles have to be replaced.  These batteries cost a minimum of $4,000.  There is also, as yet, no environmentally friendly way to dispose of the used batteries.  The Chevy Volt guarantees its battery for 8 years.  The replacement batteries for the Volt cost $10,000.

Mr. Ragsdale also spoke about CAFE standards (Corporate Average Fuel Economy).  These are the regulations that control the gas mileage of the cars the auto industry in America produces.  He pointed out that for the first time in America under President Obama CAFE standards have been raised by executive order through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), rather than through Congressional action.  This is not a move in the right direction--it gives more control to unelected government officials, which is never a good idea.

I strongly recommend CAR WRECK as good summer reading.  A friend of mine who attended the event had been planning to go car shopping tonight.  She told me after she left that she would not go car shopping until she had read the book.  I think that is a really good idea.

For further information, Mark Ragsdale's website is MarkRagsdale.com.

Bloomberg.com reported today that the August 2 deadline to raise the debt ceiling may not be entirely accurate.  Because tax revenue is coming in faster than expected, the date will probably be later than August 2. 

The article reported:

"The Treasury "has another two weeks after Aug. 2 basically of cash flow that's available, and they will pay off the interest on the debt as their No. 1 priority to avoid any default," John Silvia, chief economist at Wells Fargo Securities LLC Silvia, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television yesterday."

Considering the total lack of agreement on how to handle our out-of-control spending, I suspect that this is good news.

This is the link to Speaker John Boehner's speech.  In his speech, Representative Boehner stated:

"Last week, the House passed such a plan, and with bipartisan support. It's called the 'Cut, Cap, and Balance' Act. It CUTS and CAPS government spending and paves the way for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which we believe is the best way to stop Washington from spending money it doesn't have. Before we even passed the bill in the House, the President said he would veto it. 

"I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the president to identify a path forward that would implement the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance in a manner that could secure bipartisan support and be signed into law. I gave it my all. 

"Unfortunately, the president would not take yes for an answer. Even when we thought we might be close on an agreement, the president's demands changed."

I realize that Cut, Cap and Balance will probably never pass the current Senate or be signed into law by the current President, but it contains the elements that will allow America to begin to bring her debt under control.  I am hoping that the eventual deal that is worked out includes some serious real cuts in spending.  Unfortunately in the last spending bill passed by Congress, the spending cuts included a lot of accounting gimmicks that were not serious cuts.  Hopefully, the Republicans will not be fooled again. 

Speaker Boehner further points out:

"You see, there is no stalemate in Congress. The House has passed a bill to raise the debt limit with bipartisan support. And this week, while the Senate is struggling to pass a bill filled with phony accounting and Washington gimmicks, we will pass another bill - one that was developed with the support of the bipartisan leadership of the U.S. Senate. 

"Obviously, I expect that bill can and will pass the Senate, and be sent to the President for his signature. If the President signs it, the 'crisis' atmosphere he has created will simply disappear. The debt limit will be raised. Spending will be cut by more than one trillion dollars, and a serious, bipartisan committee of the Congress will begin the hard but necessary work of dealing with the tough challenges our nation faces. 

"The individuals doing this work will not be outsiders, but elected representatives of the people, doing the job they were elected to do as outlined in the Constitution. Those decisions should be made based on how they will affect people who are struggling to get a job, not how they affect some politician's chances of getting reelected."

A lot of what is going on in Washington right now has to do with the fact that there is an election in a little more than a year.  The actions of both parties need to be observed keeping that in mind.  My question at this point is, "What is the polling done by the White House showing?"  Does the White House believe they will gain a political advantage by shutting down the government and blaming Republicans?  Would the lack of agreement cause the President to declare that he can raise the debt ceiling unilaterally using the Fourteenth Amendment, thus sending the issue to the courts (where it would not be decided until it was no longer relevant)?  I truly wonder whether or not the President has decided that not solving this problem is in his best interest.

President Obama and House Speaker Boehner both gave speeches last night on the debt ceiling and the ongoing negotiations on how to raise it responsibly.  This is the link to the text of the President's speech.  This is the link to the text of Speaker Boehner's speech.

First a few comments on the President's speech.  My comments on Speaker Boehner's speech will be in the next article.  When President Bush left office, spending was less than $2 trillion a year--it is now almost $4 trillion a year.  That is spending--it has nothing to do with tax cuts or corporate jets and wars are not a major part of that spending.  It has to do with the fact that the House of Representatives, which initiates spending bills, has been out of control since 2006.  The elections of 2010 have begun to correct that. 

The President stated:

"...the recession meant that there was less money coming in, and it required us to spend even more -- on tax cuts for middle-class families to spur the economy; on unemployment insurance; on aid to states so we could prevent more teachers and firefighters and police officers from being laid off.  These emergency steps also added to the deficit."

Tax cuts are not spending--a tax cut allows people to keep more of THEIR money--that money never belonged to the government.  If the problem is the recession (it partially is), then why not loose regulations on companies, give everyone (including companies) a tax break, develop American energy sources, and set the economy free?

The President also stated:

"Now, what makes today's stalemate so dangerous is that it has been tied to something known as the debt ceiling -- a term that most people outside of Washington have probably never heard of before. 

"Understand -- raising the debt ceiling does not allow Congress to spend more money.  It simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.  In the past, raising the debt ceiling was routine.  Since the 1950s, Congress has always passed it, and every President has signed it.  President Reagan did it 18 times.  George W. Bush did it seven times.  And we have to do it by next Tuesday, August 2nd, or else we won't be able to pay all of our bills."  

I suspect at least 70 percent of voters have developed a good understanding of the debt ceiling in recent weeks. 

Regarding the claim that raising the debt ceiling only pays for past expenditures, Bill Kristol pointed out in the Weekly Standard last night:

"That statement might be true about a rise in the debt ceiling that would take us only through the rest of the current fiscal year, for which funds have already been appropriated by Congress. It is simply not true about the increase Obama is asking for, which is designed to cover the next fiscal year and a bit more. The fact is, Obama's $2.4 trillion increase (a number that never appears in the speech) does precisely what Obama says it doesn't: it "allow[s] Congress to spend more money." It is not the case that Obama's debt ceiling hike "simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up.""

There was no indication in this speech that the President is willing to cut spending.  There is also no indication that his goal of increasing taxes has changed.  There is a basic philosophical divide here.  The goal of the conservative Republicans now in control of the House of Representatives is to reduce spending to approximately 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  Traditionally tax receipts are about 18 percent of GDP.  The goal of the Progressives (liberals) in Congress is to increase taxes to bring in 25 percent of GDP to pay for their expanded government programs.  There are some genuine questions as to whether tax revenue can reach 25 percent even if taxes are raised significantly.  There is a tipping point where people simply stop producing because their efforts do not bring sufficient rewards to justify the work.

The President's speech did not help bridge the gap between the two sides.  It seems as if all President Obama did was dig his heels in on positions that have already been discredited.

NFL.com is reporting that the 32 player representatives voted unanimously this afternoon to approve the deal agreed to early this morning. 

The articlel reports:

"Meanwhile, the sides have agreed to a timeline that would allow some transactions and league business to begin Tuesday, sources with direct knowledge of the situation told NFL Network insider Jason La Canfora."

I don't know much about what goes on behind the scenes in the National Football League, but I love to watch football.  This is the year I hope to see my team in the Super Bowl for the first time since the 1960's! 

The article also reports that there are still some loose ends to be worked out:

"Now that the 32 team representatives approve a deal, the total NFLPA membership would need to vote, with a simple majority required for passage.

"The 10 named plaintiffs in the players' lawsuit against the league -- including Tom Brady, Payton Manning and Drew Brees-- must officially inform the court in Minneapolis of their approval of the pact, too.

"Even after that, while training camps would be opened, a true collective bargaining can't be agreed upon until the NFLPA re-establishes itself as a union. Players will need to vote to do so even as the sides put the finishing touches on a deal; only after the NFLPA is again a union can it negotiate such items as the league's personal conduct policy and drug testing."

I think this is good news.  Let the games begin!

This article is based on an opinion piece in today's Wall Street Journal by Mary Anastasia O'Grady.  I am not linking to the article because the full article is not available without a subscription.

In November 2009, Honduras voted for a new President.  In June 2009, President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office by the military because he was planning to ignore the term limits provision in the constitution in order to seek another term.  Roberto Micheletti was installed as temporary President and the election was scheduled.  Friends of President Zelaya such as the Castro brothers and Hugo Chavez protested that the arrest of President Zelaya was a military coup.  The left demanded a 'truth commission' in an attempt to bolster their claims.

The truth commission was formed under the Organization of American States (OAS) and its report was released earlier this month.  The report did not provide the results President Zelaya and his allies were looking for. 

The report reminds us that in June 2009, President Zelaya had stated that he planned to hold a referendum to overturn the term limits required in the constitution. 

The article at the Wall Street Journal reports:

"Honduran institutions, the report says, "were not effective in resolving the crisis...not for lack of actions and resolutions taken but because the authorities' decisions were ignored and were not acted upon by [the president] who personally took the actions required to execute the referendum."  The human-rights commission, the prosecutor, the attorney general, the electoral tribunal and the Supreme Court all took measures to try to stop Mr. Zelaya."

The report attempts to balance the blame--calling Mr. Micheletti's government illegal.  The report also ignores the dangers of leaving Mr. Zelaya in Honduras rather than deporting him--his followers had already demonstrated their willingness to use violence to achieve their aims. 

Unfortunately, the American State Department and some other nations were on the wrong side of these events as they were happening.  However, democracy and the rule of law triumphed in the country of Honduras.  And now the events have been studied and the lawfulness of what was done has been proven.

Haaretz is reporting today that Israeli senior defense officials have stated that one of the consequences of the 'Arab spring' is the increase in the amount of weapons being smuggled into the Gaza Strip. 

The article reports:

"In the past few months, Hamas has acquired improved high-trajectory rockets, ready-made explosive devices, anti-tank missiles and possibly anti-aircraft missiles, the sources told Haaretz."

The article further reports:

"The situation has been exacerbated by the anarchy in the Sinai, former Shin Bet chief Avi Dichter told Haaretz. "The Sinai went from being an area through which they smuggle weapons to an area through which they simply transfer weapons," he said. "No Egyptian security official dares to confront the Bedouin anymore."

"Dichter said the construction of the steel fence on the Rafah border, which Egypt began in the last year of Hosni Mubarak's rule, had been stopped, and parts of it were already being dismantled by the Bedouin."

The article also reports that the civil war in Libya has also resulted in more weapons coming into Gaza.  After the Libyan army lost control of weapons stored in the eastern part of the country, local arms dealers made contact with leaders in Gaza and began smuggling them into the Gaza strip.

This is not a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention.  There were probably protesters in Egypt and other countries who had a sincere desire for freedom, but they were not allowed to gain or keep control of the revolutionary movements.  As soon as Hosni Mubarak had stepped down, the Muslim Brotherhood began its move to take over the country.  Abboud el-Zomor, who was in prison for his role in the assassination of Anwar Sadat, was released in March.  Known radical Muslims who had been exiled under Mubarak came back into Egypt.  Freedom in the Middle East is a wonderful idea, but Sharia Law, the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood, is not compatible with freedom.  We need to keep that in mind when we determine which countries and revolutions we are willing to support.

Yesterday a website of the Hoover Institute at Stanford University posted an article explaining why Social Security checks are not at risk if the debt ceiling is reached.  This is the explanation:

"The Social Security trust fund holds about $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, which its trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running a current account deficit. Thus, if we reach the debt ceiling (which I continue to think is a remote prospect, even if less remote than it seemed a week ago), this is what will happen. The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not a prohibition on borrowing new money; it is a prohibition on increasing the total level of public indebtedness. If Social Security cashes in some of its bonds, the Treasury can borrow that same amount of money from someone else."

There will be no excuse if Social Security checks do not go out as usual.  The only possible reason would be the search for political advantage by those people currently in power. 

Logically, in a free society, you should be able to pick any news source at random and get approximately the same stories--maybe with a slightly different slant--but essentially the same stories.  Well, we seem to have lost that concept somewhere.

On Friday, Newsbusters.org reported that despite polling showing public support for a balanced budget amendement, ABC, CBS, and NBC did not report on the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan until last week.  The article also mentioned that none of the three networks mentioned that the majority of Americans favored a balanced budget amendment despite the fact that polling results have shown as many as 72 percent of Americans favor the idea. 

The article reports:

"At CBS, correspondent Whit Johnson on the July 17 "Evening News" was the first to write CCB's obituary without acknowledging public support: "They want immediate cuts, an aggressive cap on future spending, and constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget." Senate Democrats say the proposal has no chance."

"Correspondents Bill Plante and Nancy Cordes joined the hit parade in the following days, mimicking each others reports on the "Early Show" and "Evening News."

"On the July 18 "Early Show," Plante called CCB "dead on arrival," failing to mention the favorable polls: "It would revert spending back to 2008 levels and cap the budget at eighteen percent of gross domestic product. It also calls for a balanced budget amendment, a provision Democrats say is dead on arrival.""

It is unfortunate that the major networks chose not to tell the whole story. 

The article also reports:

"On the cable side, MRC analyst Matt Hadro reported that CNN ignored the findings of its own poll released Thursday demonstrating broad suport for capping spending and implementing a balanced budget amendment."

There is a reason Fox News has become so popular--they tend to tell both sides of the story.

Football lost a hero this week.  It wasn't a player, or even an owner--it was Myra Kraft, the wife of New England Patriot's owner Robert Kraft.  Mrs. Kraft did not call attention to herself, she worked quietly and tirelessly behind the scenes managing the Robert and Myra Kraft Family Foundation, serving as president of the New England Patriots Charitable Foundation and contributing her time and efforts to many other charities in the Boston area.  As a resident of Massachusetts, I know she will be sorely missed, not only by her family, but by all those who knew her and knew of her involvement in many worthwhile causes.

I apologize if this article seems disrespectful to the President, but I watched him have a temper tantrum on national television last night.  Had any one of my grandchildren spoken in the tone he used with the body language he used, they would have been sent to their room.  The President's press conference did nothing to bridge the divide--it made compromise considerably more difficult.  The message I heard from the President at the press conference was:  the Republicans have to compromise, the 2010 election is irrelevant, I am going to make everyone come talk to me tomorrow morning, and I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue.  That was my impression.

Today's Daily Caller had a slightly different reaction.  Neil Munro posted an article pointing out that the problem for the President was that because John Boehner stood his ground on no new taxes, the President's plan to use this situation to boost his chances for re-election in 2012 did not go as planned.  If serious tax increases are part of the eventual deal, there will be a serious split in the Republican Party.  There will also be a problem getting those tax increases through the House of Representatives.  Evidently, what caused the breakdown in the debt ceiling talks was the fact that the President added a last-minute demand for $400 billion in tax increases.  This is in addition to any tax revenue that would result from the repeal of the 'Bush tax cuts.'  I will admit that I am sick of hearing about the 'Bush tax cuts.'  In December, when the compromise budget deal was reached, the President stated that raising taxes on anyone would slow economic growth.  Has he changed his mind?  Did that statement (like so many others) have an expiration date?

The article reported:

"Boehner explained his decision to work with the Senate by saying the president's negotiating position was unclear.

""Never once did the President ever come to the table with a plan," he said. "We were always pushing ... [but] dealing with them is like dealing with Jell-O," he said.

""I will not get into the partisan sniping that I heard earlier [from Obama], but I can tell you there was every effort to avoid the real [budget] cuts we need to make to preserve the fiscal authority of the country ... [and to preserve] and the entitlement programs," he said."

I think that sums up where we are now.  The Republicans have been put in a position where they are expected to negotiate with themselves.  That is never a good place to be.  The question is whether or not the words of the President last night will cause a panic in the financial markets on Monday morning.  If that is the case, we have another example of creating a crisis with the idea of using it to put forth a plan that otherwise would be unacceptable.

This post is based on two articles--one in the U. K. Daily Mail today and one at a website called Infowars.com yesterday.

The Daily Mail reports:

"A video released by the Department of Homeland Security urging people to report anything suspicious has caused outrage by characterising white middle class Americans as the most likely terrorists.

"The promotional video is part of Homeland Security's $10million 'See Something, Say Something' programme as they believe it will help curb random acts of terrorism by individuals.

"But the controversial video has angered some Americans due to the fact all the actors who play the would-be terrorists in the video are white, and the people who report them are either black, Asian or Arab."

This is either polical correctness run amok or lack of knowledge of what the actual threat is.  It is unfortunate that these are the people entrusted by the public with the duty of protecting the American public from terrorism.  We can do better than this.

Jeff Sessions' website posted a statement Congressman Sessions made before Congress yesterday detailing some of the problems in reaching agreement on the debt ceiling.  Some excerpts from the statement:

First, I would like to address the myth that the president has a $4 trillion deficit-reduction plan. The only plan the White House has ever put on paper is his February budget, which doubles our national debt.

The president has never put a single spending cut plan on paper and he has no proposal to slash the deficit. If he does, it's a closely guarded secret. And if such a secret plan does exist it should be made public this very afternoon. I'd like to see it. I'm sure millions of Americans feel the same.

We also have no debt plan from Senate Democrats. In fact, they haven't even passed a budget in 813 days.

As of now, there is only one debt limit plan on paper. Only one plan available for public scrutiny and review. That's the plan we are debating today: cut, cap, and balance. It cuts spending immediately, it caps it so it doesn't go up, and it requires the passage of a balanced budget amendment to ensure Washington ends the deficit spending once and for all. The American people do not trust Washington to pass some grand budget deal with tax hikes that never go away and spending cuts that never materialize.

They are wise to the gimmicks and accounting tricks. That's why I've introduced legislation requiring 7 days to review any bill increasing the debt limit.

In fact, Washington Democrats are resisting cut, cap, and balance because they know there's no gimmick or accounting trick to get around it.

If this becomes law, Washington will have to end the spending spree. There will be no other option. These are the responsible choices families, cities, and states make every year.

In Alabama, Governor Robert Bentley oversaw an across-the-board cut of 15 percent from the General Fund in the current year because of a constitutional prohibition on deficit spending. For next year, he has proposed cuts of up to 45 percent for some state agencies. Unlike the federal government, our state is legally obligated to live within its means.

Another myth I'd like to address is the idea that our current budget crisis is the result of two wars and a tax cut. Let's consider that claim. The total cost of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, over the entire last decade, is $1.3 trillion. Again, that's over the last decade. This year alone the deficit is expected to be $1.4 trillion dollars. War costs represent only 4 percent of total outlays over the last ten years. The total amount of money spent since the president took office is $8.5 trillion dollars. By the end of his first three years in office we will have added $5 trillion to our gross federal debt. We are borrowing almost half of what we're spending every single day. In the last two years, non-defense discretionary spending has soared 24 percent. The stimulus package alone--enacted into law in a single day in 2009--cost more than the entire war in Iraq. Annual spending when President Bush took office was less than $2 trillion. Today, it's almost $4 trillion. It will be almost $6 trillion by the end of the decade.

There is only one honest answer to the question over why our debt is rising so fast: out-of-control domestic spending.

Another myth that's circulating which I'd like to address concerns the budget summary from the Gang of Six. The authors of the summary claim that their approach would reduce the deficit by $3.7 trillion. But my staff on the Budget Committee can only find $1.2 trillion in reduced spending, along with a tax increase of $1 trillion. Where does the other $1.5 trillion in deficit reduction come from? Chairman Conrad, one of the members of the Gang of Six, even says the outline has a $1.5 trillion tax cut. But this is compared against a baseline that assumes a $3.5 trillion tax increase. It's just an accounting gimmick. The real cost of the tax changes could be an increase as large as $2 trillion.

This is why we need more than a handout--we need legislative text.

I realize that is a lot to read, but it is the best summary of where we are now that I have seen.  I know there are reports that a deal is in the works, so the facts on the ground may change quickly.  I understand that the Republicans only control one half of one house of the government.  I also understand that according to the surveys I have seen, two-thirds of the American people support spending cuts--not tax increases.  Two-thirds of Americans also support not raising the debt ceiling, which I think is a bad idea.  I understand the frustration that would cause people to be against raising the debt ceiling, but I don't believe that that is the answer.  I don't expect a perfect deal, but I am looking for immediate spending cuts.  Just as an additional bit of information, the federal deficit at the end of 2008 was $10,024,724.  As of the end of 2010, the federal deficit was $13,561,623.  That is considerable growth in two years.

One thing to remember in this debate is that the government brings in about 18 percent of the Gross Domestic Product in tax revenue.  President Obama and the Democrats in Congress have a goal of increasing the federal budget from the 20 percent it has averaged in the past to 25 percent of the Gross Domestic Product.  Unless taxes are significantly increased, which may or may not increase revenue, that is not a workable long-term business plan.

Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line today noting some places where spending might be reasonably cut.  He points out that although the current converstaion seems to be focused on Social Security and Medicare, there are other prorgrams that have grown totally out of control and need to be looked at. 

Mr. Hayward points out:

"The four largest federally funded poverty programs--Medicaid, food stamps, housing subsidies, and supplemental income programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit--cost $650 billion last year, compared to $451 billion for Medicare.  The real problem is not the high spending amounts per se, but the way they have expanded willy-nilly beyond the ranks of the truly poor, which has run up their price tags beyond where they ought to be.  Some states offer benefits up to 200 percent of the poverty line, and Obamacare includes subsidies for people up to 400 percent of the poverty line--people ordinarily called "middle class.""

These programs need to be reexamined not only for their eligibility requirements, but also to evaluate the success of the program.  Programs that do not do what they were designed to do need to be scrapped.  The only thing that seems to be immortal in today's world is a government program.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the departure statistics of federal employees.  It seems that the way the majority of federal employees leave their jobs is through death. 

The article points out:

"The federal government fired 0.55% of its workers in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 -- 11,668 employees in its 2.1 million workforce. Research shows that the private sector fires about 3% of workers annually for poor performance, says John Palguta, former research chief at the federal Merit Systems Protection Board, which handles federal firing disputes.

"The 1,800-employee Federal Communications Commission and the 1,200-employee Federal Trade Commission didn't lay off or fire a single employee last year. The SBA had no layoffs, six firings and 17 deaths in its 4,000-employee workforce.

"When job security is at a premium, the federal government remains the place to work for those who want to avoid losing a job. The job security rate for all federal workers was 99.43% last year and nearly 100% for those on the job more than a few years."

Federal workers make more than their private sector counterparts.  This chart is from a website called InvestorsInsight.com:

Average Wages

Would you leave a job that paid twice as much as anyone else would pay you?

ABC News reported yesterday that Senator Harry Reid will schedule a cloture vote on the Republican Cut, Cap and Balance Bill on Saturday.  The article goes on the explain that there is no chance of the bill getting through the Senate.  I tend to agree with that statement--if the bill had any chance of passing, Harry Reid would make sure it never came up for a vote.  What the vote on cloture will do is put Senators on the record as to who is actually serious about cutting government spending and who is not.

Dan Henniger in today's Wall Street Journal posted a column about the debate on the budget ceiling.  Mr. Henniger points out that the root of the debate has to do with the size of government:

"What Republicans and ideologically independent voters want is a GOP candidate willing--and more importantly, able--to engage Barack Obama frontally and in detail over the future of the spending commitments embedded in the events of the past three years and the past 70 years. Mr. Obama wants spending to rise to 25% of GDP to support those commitments for the next 70 years. Until we settle this and the taxes it implies, everything else a candidate may propose, such as devolving power away from Washington, is beside the point because it won't be possible."

Part of the Cut, Cap and Balance Bill includes the statement:

"We need statutory, enforceable caps to align federal spending with average revenues at 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), with automatic spending reductions if the caps are breached."

I don't know if any of the principles in Cut, Cap and Balance will make the final cut, but in listening to the debate, a few things stand out.  Spending cuts go against the grain of most Congressmen serving in Washington.  Even if spending cuts are promised, if there is not a mechanism to ensure that they occur, they will not happen.  We saw that principle at work during the Reagan years--the Democrats promised spending cuts and tax cuts--the tax cuts happened, the spending cuts never did.  Unless the spending is capped as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product, government will continue to grow and spending will continue to spiral out of control.

I am concerned that any budget cuts promised in the compromise that is eventually reached will never happen.  Budget cuts scheduled for more than two years away, somehow disappear as the time for them draws near.  All we can do is hope that there are enough grown-ups in Washington to see the severity of the budget problem and be willing to deal with it.  I am not sure there are.

On Sunday, the New York Post posted an article giving the readers some idea of where the money goes. 

The article asks the question:

"...just ask yourself this simple question: When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks?"

That is an interesting question.  The article points out:

"The feds now borrow 43 cents of every dollar they spend.  Under Obama, outlays have soared to nearly a quarter of GDP (the historical average is just under 20 percent) -- and once ObamaCare starts to fully kick in around 2014, it will only rise."

The article also reminds us of the history of Medicare.  When Medicare began in 1966, the cost was $3 billion.  Congress predicted that by1990 it would cost about $12 billion, allowing for inflation.  The actual figure was $107 billion.  The future unfunded obligations of Medicare total at least $36 trillion.  This is typical of government programs--they never get smaller and they rarely stay within the bounds of their estimated cost!

The article further points out:

"Yet the president and the Democrats still refuse to put meaningful spending cuts on the table--and refuse completely to deal with the entitlement monster.  Even though they know the numbers don't work, they're trying to lock in Obama's sky-high spending as the new normal--and then up the ante.

"The debt-ceiling cage match is the culmination of the Democrats' 75-year-long fight to establish a voting bloc of dependents under the false flags of "compassion" and "social justice."  It's sapped out strength, created a welfare mentality and, if unchecked, will reduce us to a nation of aging, resentful beggars with eyes cast permanently toward Washington."

That statement pretty much covers the situation.

Overspending by the government is not a new thing.  In October of 2009, Heritage.org posted a list of 50 examples of government waste.  Please follow the link and read the list.  In October 2010, Heritage.org posted a plan to cut $343 billion from the federal budget.  The link provides a very specific list of cuts that can be made in 2012 to reach that number--something Congress (other than Paul Ryan) has been willing to do.

Last night the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2560, the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act.  The bill passed 234 to 190, with five Republicans voting against the bill and nine Democrats voting against it.  The article posted at Hot Air quotes Paul Ryan:

""The House of Representatives continues to advance serious solutions to get our budget on the path to balance and our economy on the path to prosperity.  The Cut, Cap and Balance legislation passed today cuts $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade, locks in those savings with enforceable caps on spending, and forces Washington to finally live within its means with a Balanced Budget Amendment.

""The coming debt crisis is the single most predictable economic disaster in the history of this nation. Unfortunately, the White House refuses to put forth a credible plan to solve our spending problem, and Senate Democrats have not passed a budget in over 800 days. I remain hopeful that responsible leaders will work with us to advance specific solutions that uphold our solemn commitment to leave the next generation with a stronger, more prosperous nation than the one we inherited.""

Michele Bachmann voted against the bill stating that the only way she would be willing to raise the debt ceiling would be if it included a full repeal of Obamacare.  Paul Broun of Georgia also voted against the bill because he had made a pledge to his constituents that he would not raise the debt ceiling.

The article at Hot Air also points out that this is the second Republican budget proposal this session, while the Democrats have not passed a budget in more than 800 days--they are happy just to criticize Republican ideas rather than come up with their own ideas.

Realistically, I don't think Cut, Cap, and Balance will get past the House of Representatives.  What the bill does accomplish is to make clear what the goals of the Republicans are in regard to spending and debt.  Even if the bill never sees the light of day in the Senate, the fact that the bill exists will give voters a clear choice in November 2012.

I am in favor of legal immigration.  My family is made up of people from at least four countries and three major religions.  I am glad they all came here and managed to get together and form my family.  There are family stories of extreme poverty and also stories of major successes.  There are things we can be proud of and things we would rather not talk about, but we are all Americans.  We have family traditions that go back to our roots, and we have family traditions that are totally based in American traditions.  But we are all Americans and we believe in this country and the laws of this country.  That is part of what makes America one country.

Britain has a problem.  According to a CBN News report dated Sunday, a group calling itself Muslims Against the Crusades is proposing that two towns in Yorkshire and one in East London be turned into states ruled only by Islamic law, entirely outside British common law.

The article reports:

"Some government officials in the towns also agree that the Muslims Against the Crusades proposal doesn't represent the wishes of most of the Muslim population there.

"Still, Christians are fighting the proposal, saying Islamic law isn't compatible with Britain's Christian heritage and values.

"Last month, Baroness Caroline Cox introduced a bill into the House of Lords to protect Muslim women from abuses under Sharia law.

""In Britain, we have a country where many people have died to protect the democratic freedoms enshrined in our laws and our culture," Cox said.

""And we have now allowed an alternative quasi-legal system to develop in our land, which is fundamentally incompatible with those democratic freedoms and where many citizens, especially women, are suffering as a result," she said."

Currently there are 751 Zones Urbaines Sensibles, or Sensitive Urban Zones in France--these are zones in France that the French state does not control. They range from two zones in the medieval town of Carcassone to twelve in the heavily Muslim town of Marseilles, with hardly a town in France lacking in its ZUS. The ZUS came into existence in late 1996 and according to a 2004 estimate, nearly 5 million people live in them.  This information is from an article at Daniel Pipes.org written in November 2006 and updated in January 2010.

Is this the direction western civilization is headed?  Can western civilization survive going in this direction?

Yesterday Holly Robichaud posted a column in the Boston Herald which beautifully listed the scare tactics currently being used by Democrat lawmakers to try to take more of your money.  Holly lists six myths the Democrats are using in their quest for more money.

The myths:

1.  If Congress does not raise the debt ceiling, Social Security checks will not go out.  I reported at rightwinggranny.com on July 14th:

""The responsibility of the Social Security Administration per se, my boss, Commissioner Astrue, is to in fact determine how much in the way of benefit payments people are supposed to receive," Goss said. "We send that information actually over to the Department of the Treasury. They are the ones who actually send out the payments, whether it's electronic funds, transfers, or check.""

Just for the record, even without raising the debt ceiling, there is enough money coming into the treasury to pay social security checks.

2.  Republicans are unwilling to negotiate.  The Republicans have laid numerous specific plans on the table.  The only specific plan laid out by the Democrats was the President's budget, which was so bad it was voted down in the Senate 97 to 0.  The President has also stated that he is unwilling to sign a short-term solution.

3.  Medicare is being cut for seniors.  Just for the record, there are $ 500 billion cuts to Medicare in Obamacare.  No Republican plan cuts Medicare for anyone over the age of 55.  The Republican plan is to restructure it for younger people in order to prevent the program from going broke in the very near future.

4.  The national debt is Bush's fault.  It is true that President Bush did not control spending--but if you look at spending during the Bush years, you will notice that it increased dramatically when the Democrats took over the House of Representatives.  Technically, spending comes from the House of Representatives.  President Bush and past presidents created $10 trillion of the debt--President Obama has created $4 trillion in just three years.  It's the spending, stupid!

5.  Republicans are playing politics with the debt ceiling crisis.  The Democrats have not passed a budget in 810 days.  Instead, they have simply been criticizing all of the Republican proposals.  Who is playing politics?

6.  Taxes need to be raised.  No, they don't.  They might need to be revised, but this is not the time for that.  It really is the spending.  The only sector of the economy that has grown in this recession is the government.  Government employees now make about 150 % of what people in the private sector make.  It's the spending, stupid!

I just want to post one picture of government spending.  Do you think there might be room for cuts here?

It's time to take another look at how the government spends OUR money.  We need to remember that it is our money--not the government's.  We earned it.  We are obligated to give a small amount to the government for their expenses, but we are not obligated to support unnecessary government bureaucracies.

 

I don't consider myself an unsympathetic person; however, I do believe that most of the time people should suffer the consequences of their own behavior.  I may be a minority in that belief if the following story is any indication of current thinking.

Today Charleston's Post and Courier posted a story about how the new requirement for identification in order to vote in South Carolina may disenfranchise some voters.  The example they cite is Everett Garlington, a resident of West Ashley.  Mr. Garlington has a problem that will prevent him from voting under the new law.  He lost his driver's license.  He could get a replacement, but because he owes $160 to the Department of Motor Vehicles because of turning in license plates late, he can't afford to get a new license.

The article goes on to explain that requiring voters to identify themselves is discriminatory, etc.--the usual arguments.  Those protesting the requirement for identification compare this requirement to activities of the KKK and other racist groups.

The article reports:

"Representatives from several opposition groups said Monday their immediate goal is to petition U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to strike down the law as a violation of the Voting Rights Act."

Now stop and think a minute.  There are a few obvious questions I would like to ask at this point.  If Mr. Garlington is still driving, is he breaking the law?  If he pays the fine that he incurred, he gets his license back, and the problem is solved.  The problem is not the law--it is the fact that Mr. Garlington owes a fine he has not paid.  If he did not have a license, he would be eligible for a free identification card, and he would be able to vote.  We live in a country where identification is needed to do certain things--buy cigarettes and alcohol, board an airplane, buy certain cough or allergy medication, etc.  Would the writer of this article have us believe that the majority of poor residents in South Carolina do not smoke, drink, buy cough medicine or fly airplanes?   Seems a bit of a stretch to me.

Quote Of The Day

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Said by Tre Hargett, Tennessee secretary of state:

"I think that nothing could disenfranchise an eligible voter more than finding out that ineligible voters are voting."

This quote is taken from an NPR article on voter identification cited in a Hot Air article today.  In reporting on the drive for voter identification, NPR has pushed the Democrat Party line--"...minorities, students, the poor and disabled -- those most likely to vote Democratic -- will be hurt the most."  I would just like to mention that if any of those minorities, students, or poor and disabled smoke, buy alcohol, or ever get on an airplane, they need a photo ID.  Certainly voting is as important as those activities.  Supporters of voter identification laws say the rules are needed to ensure honest elections.  After what we have seen with bogus voter registrations in some of our major states, I agree.

Fox Business reported today that more that 400 companies have sent a letter to Congress urging repeal of a $20 billion medical-device tax scheduled to go into effect in 2013.  This is one of many taxes scheduled to go into effect after the 2012 election--the purpose of the tax increases is to attempt to pay for Obamacare.  The companies are asking for a repeal of the 2.3% excise tax on medical-device manufacturers. 

There were two letters--one to the House of Representatives and one to the Senate.  The letters stated:

"We believe that implementation of this $20 billion excise tax will adversely impact patient care and innovation, and will substantially increase the costs of health care."

One of the things to remember when we hear complaints about the cost of drugs and medical devices in America is that a very large percentage of what we pay goes to research and development of new drugs and devices.  If we intend to keep moving forward in medical science, we need to allow the companies developing drugs and devices to reap the rewards of their research and development.  Like it or not, profit is a strong motive--it works.  To impose higher taxes on medical device manufacturers will increase the cost to the consumer (tax hikes on corporations are always passed on to the consumer--the companies never pay them!).

The best solution to this problem is twofold--first repeal the tax, then repeal Obamacare.

Investors.com posted an editorial about the double standard being applied to the government-sponsored gun running operation (Operation Fast and Furious) that was going on at America's southern border and the Iran-Contra scandal. 

The article points out:

"As if "Project Gunrunner" and "Operation Fast and Furious" weren't bad enough, we now learn of "Operation Castaway," run out of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' Tampa field division. It's another operation that allowed guns to "walk" south of the border, this time to Honduras, using similar techniques and tactics."

At least Iran Contra was done with the idea of supporting freedom.  In Operation Fast and Furious, the guns have gone to the Central American MS-13 gang and to the drug cartels. 

The article points out:

"The real purpose, we have stated and still suspect, was to advance the administration's push for gun control and the stripping of law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights through "common sense" restrictions on private gun ownership by creating chaos and fomenting violence with the guns provided.

"Indeed, it did not take long for ATF to announce a new gun-control mandate -- the requirement that gun store owners in the border states of Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico make a special ATF report for multiple long-gun sales, the same type of weapons the ATF was freely providing to the worst of the worst."
Before President Obama was a Senator, he worked as a community organizer.  The guidebook for community organizers is Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals."  President Obama has brought the principles of this book into his presidency.  Two of these rules have been followed in Operation Fast and Furious:
 
8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The events (out of control gun shipments to Mexico and Central America) were set up by the Obama Administration.  The cure, expanded gun control, was to end the threat of 'guns gone wild.'  The goal from the beginning was to curtail gun sales and gun ownership in the United States.  That is not a positive step toward freedom--ever.
 
The investigation into Operation Fast and Furious has been stalled from the beginning.  The article reports:
 
"...the Department of Justice is stalling on any cooperation with Rep. Darrel Issa's House Oversight Committee. The only information ATF has provided freely has been to potential witnesses, giving them, according to BigGovernment.com, access to a shared drive on its computer system so everyone can compare notes and get their stories straight."
It's time for the press to do their job and expose this scandal for what it is--a government-created crisis set up to allow an end run around the Second Amendment.

President Obama called for 'shared sacrifice' in his weekly address yesterday.  How about shared success?  If you punish success, how in the world do you expect people to aspire to it? 

This is a quote from the speech:

"We shouldn't put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of folks who've already borne the brunt of the recession. It's not reasonable and it's not right. If we're going to ask seniors, or students, or middle-class Americans to sacrifice, then we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice. We have to ask everyone to play their part. Because we are all part of the same country. We are all in this together."

The wealthiest Americans are paying their part.  The richest 20 percent of Americans paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 28.1 percent.  There are also figures that show that about 50 percent of Americans pay no taxes at all (including General Electric--which did not break the law, but used the loopholes available).  I am not in favor of 'raising taxes on the rich.'  I am in favor making sure everyone pays something--even if it is $100 a year.  Meanwhile--it's the spending stupid!

 

The Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS) is back.  On July 13, the Washington Times posted an article by Kim R. Holmes reporting that Senator John Kerry is asking the Senate to approve the treaty because it would give the United States 'new rights and advantages.'  This is simply not true.

The treaty was first put together in 1982.  In 1994, U. S. negotiators signed an amended agreement, but it was never ratified by the Senate. 

Supporters of the treaty say that it will give the United States 'new rights', but the United States already has those rights under international law. 

For example, the article points out:

"Unfortunately, it does not. What "rights" it recognizes already exist in customary international law. Treaty supporters claim ratification will give the U.S. additional rights to oil, gas and minerals in the deep seabed of its extended continental shelf. But the U.S. already has clear legal title and rights to the resources of its continental shelf (even though the current administration bans drilling there).

"Similarly, the treaty's navigational provisions offer nothing new. Yes, the U.S. Navy says UNCLOS might improve the "predictability" of these rights, but does the Navy's access to international waters really depend upon a treaty to which we are not even a member? The last time I checked, the U.S. Navy could go anywhere it wanted in international waters."

The treaty creates an unaccountable international bureaucracy " to redistribute the wealth of the deep seabed and the extended continental shelf."  This does not sound like something we need to ratify. 

The article points out:

"Were the U.S. to join, it would have to share with "developing" nations any royalty revenue generated on its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile mark. The International Seabed Authority would decide just how these revenues are distributed. The U.S. by itself would have no veto over its decisions.

"Consensus often works against U.S. interests in the U.N. General Assembly, and it would do so in this international body. Imagine how a U.N.-like body with a "right" to distribute U.S. revenues would behave."

I am not ready to go on record as saying that this is a step toward one-world government, but it does seem as if the establishment of a new international bureaucracy is not a good move for those of us seeking to preserve our country's sovereignty.   If you look at some of the decisions made lately by the United Nations, it is frightening to even think of the U.N. creating an administrative body that will supersede the laws of the member countries.  Do you trust the organization that just named North Korea as the head of its Disarmament Conference to control the world's wealth that comes from the sea?

On July 12, Peter Wallison posted an article at the Wall Street Journal concerning the causes of the financial meltdown that the country recently experienced.  Peter Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission who dissented from the majority report.

Mr. Wallison is reporting on a new book which refutes the government commission's conclusion that the "greed on Wall Street and faulty risk management at banks and other financial firms" were responsible for the collapse of the housing market. 

Mr. Wallison reports:

"With the publication of "Reckless Endangerment," a new book about the causes of the crisis, this story is beginning to unravel. The authors, Gretchen Morgenson, a business reporter and commentator for the New York Times, and Josh Rosner, a financial analyst, make clear that it was Fannie Mae and the government housing policies it supported, pursued and exploited that brought the financial system to a halt in 2008."

So why is the government commission telling us a different story?   James A. Johnson, a Democratic political operative and former aide to Walter Mondale, became chairman of Fannie Mae in 1991.  At that point Fannie Mae became political--aligning itself with those in Congress who wanted to make homeownership possible for people who had not previously able to obtain mortgages.  This is a great goal, but when put in practice causes problems.

The article reports:

""Under Johnson," write Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner, "Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among banks whose loans the company bought. . . . Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the financial crisis of 2008.""

The above information does not appear in the government commission's report.  The commission also heard testimony that by 2008 half of all mortgages in the U.S. (27 million loans) were subprime or otherwise risky, and that 12 million of these loans were on the books of the GSEs.  Somehow that was overlooked in the conclusions drawn.

The article explains why the Dodd-Frank Act did not address the problem of Fannie Mae:

"The principal sponsors of that Dodd-Frank Act, former Sen. Chris Dodd and former House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank, were also the principal supporters and political protectors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the government housing policies they implemented.

"It is little wonder then that legislation named after them would place the blame for the financial crisis solely on the private sector and do nothing to reform a government-backed housing finance system that will increasingly be seen as the primary cause of the devastating events of 2008."

To add to the problem, on July 9, I reported (rightwinggranny.com) that Eric Holder's justice department has asked banks to relax their lending standards.  Because we did not properly address the problem the first time, we are destined to repeat our past mistake.

This article asks a question.  I do not have an answer.  I just want to show both sides of the story and provide some food for thought.

The article is based on two articles--the first from (Long Island) Newsday yesterday, and the second from CBS News on Thursday.  Both articles have to do with a voter referendum on August 1 concerning a new coliseum for Nassau County, New York.

The article at Newsday reports that Camoin Associates, a Malta, N.Y., consulting firm that advises municipalities on economic development, has given a report to Nassau County stating that if the New York Islanders Hockey team fails to renew its contract in 2015, it could cost the county 2,660 jobs and nearly $104 million in annual earnings and approximately $8 million a year in tax revenue.

The Newsday article gets to the heart of the matter:

"Nassau residents will vote Aug. 1 on whether to borrow as much as $400 million for a new hockey arena and minor league ballpark. Islanders owner Charles Wang has threatened to move the team if a new arena is not built."

The article at CBS News states:

"The  Nassau Interim Finance Authority said Thursday that if a referendum to $400 million to renovate the Nassau Coliseum passes, it would likely result in a 3.5 to 4 percent average property tax increase."

The article at CBS News also states:

"Desmond Ryan of the Association for a Better Long Island said there were too many unanswered questions to support the renovations."

There are a lot of good points on both sides here.  Charles Wang originally made an offer to the county that was privately paid for, but included development in addition to the coliseum renovation.  His proposal would have impacted his cash flow in such a way that his private funding of a new coliseum or renovations was a good business move.  The county turned it down.  The question is not whether or not the coliseum needs renovation--it does.  The question is who should pay for it.  Because the county turned down private funding, their only option now seems to be public funding. 

I understand the argument that the renovation will raise taxes, and I hate to see that happen to anyone--the problem is that when taxes go up, they rarely go down.  If the referendum goes through and taxes are raised for the coliseum, what are the chances of them going down when the predicted revenues from the new coliseum are collected?  One the other hand, if the referendum is not passed and jobs and revenues are lost, wouldn't everyone's taxes go up to make up for the loss of revenue?

I meant what I said--I don't know what the answer is.  I hate to see the county rather than a private businessman rebuild a coliseum.  Who owns the coliseum after the country rebuilds it?  I also hate to see people lose their jobs, the county lose the revenue, and people's taxes go up to make up the difference.   I hope the voters of Nassau County have more insight into this situation than I do!

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday that forty Republican Senators voted to sustain a point of order brought up by Senator Jeff Sessions objecting to the Democrats being in violation of the Congressional Budget Act.  According to the Congressional Budget Act, appropriations bills cannot be passed when there is no federal budget in place.  The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009. 

The article reports:

"The implication of today's vote is that it will be hard for the Democrats to get the necessary 60 votes for cloture on any future illegal spending measures. The federal government has now been operating contrary to law for more than two years without a budget."

It's time for transparency and fiscal responsibility to make an appearance in Washington.

This is going to be a rather disjointed article about two separate aspects of the budget ceiling debate.

The first link is to an article at the American Thinker about how the government actually spends its money.  The article gives examples of things that the government could skip paying in order to fund Social Security and veterans (Obama has threatened to delay those checks if the debt ceiling is not raised).  These are some of the items:

ObamaCare                                                                       $1.5 trillion

Planned Parenthood (annually)                                        $330 million

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac                                                 $145 billion

Amtrak                                                                              $1.9 billion

Unspent Stimulus/ War Chest                                           $60 billion

National Endowment for the Arts                                   $133 million

National Endowment for the Humanities                        $140 million

The Post Office                                                                 $1.0 billion

Vacant Federal Properties                                               $25.0 billion

Medicare Fraud                                                               $47.0 billion

National Broadband Coverage Map                             $350.0 million

Federal Employee Flight Upgrades                              $146.0 million

Beach Re-sanding                                                              $3.0 billion

Payments Not to Use Land (conservation)                      $2.0 billion

International Abortions/Population Control               $650.0 million

Libya Kinetic Military Action                                    $750.0 million

Consumer Protection Bureau                                      $329.0 million

United Nations                                                                $6.4 billion

NPR/Corporation for Public Broadcasting                 $451.0 million

Renewable Energy Tax Credits (mostly wind)                $6.9 billion

Tax Credits to IRS employees/Others                        $513.0 million

Federal Weatherization Programs                                    $5.0 billion

99 Week Unemployment Benefits                              $100.0 billion

Total                                                                       $1.9 - 2.0 trillion

It seems to me that there are a few things here that might be closely examined with the idea of saving money.  Anyway, these are some of the places your tax money goes.

The second part of this article has to do with telling the truth.  This is a very simple example of why all of us need to be paying attention to the current debate. 

The Hill reported today that:

"Obama said, citing "poll after poll" showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking "a balanced approach" -- including both increased revenues and spending cuts in a plan to cut the deficit."

Rasmussen Reports reported yesterday that:

"Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not."

At least most of the American people understand that the problem is the spending--not the lack of revenue.  It is unfortunate that the President is either not aware of that or is lying about it.

This article is based on two articles.  The first was posted at Hot Air yesterday; the second was posted at Investors.com yesterday. 

The Hot Air post concerns the testimony of Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, during a Budget Hearing in Congress yesterday morning.  Mr. Goss was asked by Kansas Republican Representative Tim Huelskamp why Social Security checks might not go out August 3.  Representative Huelskamp pointed out that even under the debt limit the nation has enough money to cover the interest on its debt, Social Security payments, and more. 

The article reports:

"Goss confirmed the decision to send out Social Security checks (or not) would, indeed, be a Treasury Department (a.k.a. the administration's) decision.

""The responsibility of the Social Security Administration per se, my boss, Commissioner Astrue, is to in fact determine how much in the way of benefit payments people are supposed to receive," Goss said. "We send that information actually over to the Department of the Treasury. They are the ones who actually send out the payments, whether it's electronic funds, transfers, or check.""

The article at Investors.com points out that the fact that the President is threatening Social Security payments if the debt ceiling is not raised further confirms the fact that there is no Social Security fund. 

The article at Investors.com reports:

"Wait! What happened to Social Security's "guarantee"? You know, the iron-clad assurance of Social Security benefits in exchange for paying into the program your whole working life? It's something Democrats constantly talk about, particularly when attacking Republicans who propose privatizing the program.

"As Nancy Pelosi once put it: "Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble."

"The AFL-CIO warned in 2005 about "President Bush's plan to replace Social Security's guaranteed benefits with risky private accounts." The AARP describes Social Security as "the guaranteed part of your retirement plan." Etc., etc.

"Turns out, this "guarantee" is a lie.

"In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that workers do not have a legal right to their Social Security benefits."
We can't stop the scare tactics being used by the White House in the debt ceiling debate, but at least we can be aware that those threats are not only bogus, but they also reveal the fiscal irresponsibility that has run rampant in Washington since the 1960's.

Michael W. McConnell, who was assistant general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981-1983 and is not a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, posted an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today.

In his article Professor McConnell explains:

"But the absence of any written budgetary documents and the closed-door nature of the negotiating sessions make it impossible to tell which side is being "serious" and which side is being intransigent. Instead of specific proposals, scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and open to examination by press and public, we get vague generalities about "trillions" of dollars in supposed savings based on who-knows-what changes in policy."

He cites the 'rules' that according to law should be governing the current discussion on the budget and the debt ceiling.  According to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Congress enacted in 1974, the president must submit a proposed budget "on or before" the first Monday in February.  The CBO (Congressional Budget Office)  has until February 15th to score the budget.  President Obama did submit a budget--it was defeated in the Senate 97 to 0.  In April, the President made a speech proposing a new plan, but with no specifics.

The Budget Act requires the House and Senate to hold hearings on the President's budget proposal.  By April 1, the House and Senate must adopt the President's proposal or put forth an alternative.  By April 15, Congress must adopt a concurrent resolution embodying a congressional budget.  Appropriations bills must stay within this budget or be subject to a point of order.

The House of Representatives has passed a budget.  The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009. 

The Budget Act was designed to make the budget process transparent and prevent the neverending vague negotiations we are currently enduring.  We have no idea what the President's suggestions are, and the only idea we have of the Republican position is from the Ryan budget, which the White House and the mainstream press have labeled unacceptable. 

It's time to get back to following the rules and bringing the process out into the open air.  Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

ABC News posted an article today about Harvard University child expert Dr. David Ludwig's recent statement that some parents should lose custody of their severely obese children.

The article reports:

"Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children's Hospital Boston and associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, shared his divisive idea in an opinion piece that ran in the Journal of the American Medical Association Wednesday: that state intervention can serve in the best interest of extremely obese children, of which there're about 2 million across the United States."

I agree that childhood obesity is a problem.  However, I disagree that even the threat of taking children away from their parents is the answer.  There are a lot of factors in play here.  Some obesity may be inherited, some may be the result of poor eating habits, some may be the result of disease, some may be the result of lifestyle issues (too many video games--too little exercise), and some may be the result of some of things that are routinely injected into America's food supply.  Taking children away from their parents addresses very few of these issues.

To me, the important part of this article is the idea that taking a child out of his/her original family because he is considered obese is even possible.  The article at ABC relates the story of a family whose child was removed from their household because of being obese.  The child was returned to the family after two months--she did no better in foster care.  The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.

I am not willing to let the government take children away from families because of obesity.  The idea that foster care is better than a family because a child is obese is just horrible.  If you want to control obesity in children, put gym classes back in the schools and encourage an active lifestyle.  That's not the total answer, but it would help.

I need to say up front that I have always loved Ed Koch.  I probably disagree with him on everything politically, but I sincerely like him.  I think when God designed Ed Koch He said, "I need to design the perfect person to be Mayor of New York City.  He may not do a perfect job, but he will reflect the spirit of the city."  That's why I like Ed Koch.  I also respect him.  He has spoken out in a principled way on numerous occasions when what he had to say was not popular--but he spoke out anyway. 

Yesterday the New York Post reported that Ed Koch has stated that as a protest against President Obama's policies on Israel he is considering voting for Bob Turner, the Republican-Conservative candidate for ex-Representative Anthony Weiner's House of Representatives seat.  Mayor Koch stated that he would vote for Bob Turner if Turner backs Israel and opposes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts.

He urged Jewish New Yorkers and those who support Israel to vote Republican in the special election in September.  Mayor Koch is hoping that seeing a strong Republican vote by Democrats might cause President Obama to change his treatment of Israel and reestablish the special relationship America has had with Israel in the past.  I see no hope of that at all, but I admire the effort. 

There is only one logical reason that the Obama administration has treated Israel so badly--it has to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.  The country supplying arms to Iraq and Afghanistan and fomenting chaos in those two countries is Iran.  I honestly believe that President Obama came into office with the idea that he could charm Iran into bringing peace to the Middle East.  I think he felt that he had to abandon Israel to do this, but eventually, his policies would bring peace to Israel.  I think this idea is pure science fiction, but if you believe that you can charm anyone into cooperating with you, this is something you might attempt.  Remember that President Obama, as near as any records of his past that have been made public, has never really been challenged as to what he believes and what he is doing.  As a community organizer, he was in charge and no one argued.  I don't know if dissenting opinions are allowed in the Obama White House.  I rather doubt it. 

What the President does not seem to understand is the role of radical Islam in the Iranian government.  When the radicals took over Iran in 1979, they pledged to set up a world-wide caliphate under Sharia Law with Iran as a major player and Iraq as its center.  Those goals have not changed.

I admire Mayor Koch for his statement of principle, but I doubt any actions he takes will have the desired result.

Yesterday, Reuters.com posted an article by James Pethokoukis about exactly what happens if the debt ceiling is not raised.  The article included this chart:

The chart illustrates a number of things.  Note how much more the government is spending than what it actually takes in.  Note also that interest is a major part of government's monthly expenses.  One simple way to lower monthly expenses is to bite the bullet--cut overall spending and begin to pay down the debt in order to decrease interest payments.

The article answers a number of questions about what will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised.  Here are two of them:

Q: What happens on August 3 if the debt limit is not increased?

A:  ...  Using August 2010 spending and receipts as a proxy, the Treasury will probably take in $5-$10 bn in revenue on August 3, leaving insufficient revenues to make Social Security payments partly unfunded even if all other spending is deferred. Since the Treasury has carried a minimum cash balance of about $20 bn since 2009, and currently carries a balance of $74 bn, Social Security payments might still be made by drawing down the Treasury's cash balance.

Q: Are Treasury interest payments at risk?

A: We do not think so. ... There are two basic reasons that interest payments should not be called into question: First, if the August 2 deadline is missed, it is very difficult to see the debate dragging to August 15, when interest payments are made, since we doubt there will much congressional appetite for a protracted lapse in borrowing authority.  ... Second, the Treasury is likely to prioritize payments. While the sharp fiscal contraction that would result from prioritization would have negative short-term economic consequences and would be difficult to implement, it nevertheless seems likely if necessary.

Please follow the link to the article.  The article is one of the clearest explanations of what will happen if an agreement is not reached that I have seen.

The Hand Revealed

| | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

CBS News posted a story today with the headline, "Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3."  He is, of course, talking about what will happen if the Democrats and Republicans do not reach agreement on raising the debt ceiling.

Some thoughts--you mean Social Security checks are paid out of the deficit?  What happens to all the money collected in taxes for Social Security?  Isn't there more money being paid in every week when people get paid?  So how could the debt ceiling be a problem for Social Security?

The article reports:

"Mr. Obama told Pelley (CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley) "this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out.""

The word I would use to describe that statement I am not willing to write on my blog.  This is an outright lie and it is blackmail.  If the Republicans do not stand up to this, not only are they stupid, there will be a third political party.  Any American who is paying any attention at all to what is going on in Washington should be deeply offended by this statement.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece about the taxes on Americans scheduled to being after the 2012 election--these taxes are an integral part of Obamacare. 

The article reports:

• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare's 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on "the rich." Oh, and these new taxes aren't indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That's estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on "branded" drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% "excise tax" on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare's original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion--and much more in future years.

• And don't forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

There are numerous other new taxes in the bill, all adding up to some $438 billion in new revenue over 10 years. But even that is understated because by 2019 the annual revenue increase is nearly $90 billion, or $900 billion in the 10 years after that. Yet Mr. Obama wants to add another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of this.

The article further reports:

The economic ironies are also, well, rich. Mr. Obama is now pushing to reduce the payroll tax by two-percentage points for another year to boost the economy, but he's already built in a big increase in that same payroll tax for 2013. So if a payroll tax cut creates jobs this year, why doesn't a payroll tax increase destroy jobs after 2013?

It is becoming increasingly clear that President Obama's fiscal policies are not based on the health of the American economy but on election politics.  He allowed the 'Bush tax cuts' to continue in the January budget debates because he stated that raising taxes would cost jobs.  If raising taxes would cost jobs in December, how is it that raising taxes in July does not cost jobs? 

Republicans--stand your ground!!  No new taxes!!!  It's the spending, stupid!!!

Recently The Blaze reported that Israel had been placed on the terror watch list by the Department of Homeland Security.  Last week, The Blaze reported that Homeland Security has acknowledged that this was a mistake done on the basis of "inaccurarte information."  The article reports that Israel was placed on the list in May of 2011. 

The article reports:

"This list, which includes 36 nations, does not target government policies as the catalyst for inclusion. Rather, it looks at the likelihood that a traveler from a specific country might have terrorist ties. If a traveler from one of the listed nations is detained, that country's presence on the list will spawn a special check by ICE (called a Third Agency Check or TAC)."

The Department of Homeland Security is supposed to protect us from terrorists--not accuse our friends of being terrorists.  An agency charged with maintaining our security and safety should not be making such major mistakes.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about the dangers of dining out with friends.  Well, that's not really what the headline of the story was, but that was what the story was about.  I am sure you have heard of this, but, just in case, I will give you the details.

Paul Ryan was dining out with friends (it wasn't eating out because it was an upscale restaurant) at the Bistro Bis in Washington, D. C.  Susan Feinberg, an associate professor at Rutgers saw an expensive bottle of wine on his table and decided that it was not appropriate for him to be drinking good wine.  She took pictures with her cell phone and went over the Respresentative Ryan's table and gave him a piece of her mind--to the point where the management of the restaurant asked her to leave. 

The article points out:

There are several lessons to be learned here:

  1. In addition to the aeronautics industry -- private jets! -- obviously the winemaking industry is another one that shouldn't produce jobs.
  2. Rich people spending their own money is bad, because they're not giving that money to the government for programs that don't work.
  3. It's okay for a good person (Feinberg) to go to the same expensive restaurant as a bad person (Ryan), because she didn't order the wrong thing.

Aside from the incredible rudeness exhibited by this professor, how is it anyone's right to criticize what anyone else is eating at a restaurant?   It is bad enough that the government is trying to tell Americans how to spend their money, now we have the self-appointed restaurant police to help control the people they disagree with. 

I like the way the article sums up the events:

"That's right: a busybody had some expensive wine at a restaurant and saw somebody she didn't like having wine that was even more expensive, so she lurched over to his table and started berating him for his order. Then, because she thought it made him look bad, she decided to go to the press with it. Well, to TPM (Talking Points Memo), at least."

This woman should be forced to make a public apology.  There is no excuse for her behavior.

On Thursday the Daily Caller reported that there actually is a Democrat budget proposal.  The article reported that last week the Senate Budget Committee, headed by Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, announced that a budget proposal had been finalized and would be released early this week (early in the week of July 7th).  The proposal is still not released, although the Democrat caucus has seen it.  Several Republicans in the Senate have sent a letter to Harry Reid asking that the budget proposal be made public.  It remains secret. 

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to predict what will happen next.  After a media-induced panic over the debt ceiling, the Democrats will drag out their budget at the last minute and say that the world as we know it will end if that budget is not passed exactly as it stands. 

Anyone want to make a bet?

On Thursday the U.K. Telegraph posted an article about a totally ridiculous restriction put on British soldiers in Afghanistan.  The British soldiers are fighting under the rules of engagement laid out by NATO. 

The article reports:

"British soldiers who spot Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs are told not to shoot them because they do not pose an immediate threat, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. 

"They are instead being ordered to just observe insurgents and record their position to reduce the risk of civilian casualties."

This information was disclosed during the investigation into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. 

The only good news in this article comes from a statement made by a British officer who recently served in Afghanistan:

"He said: "A British soldier manning a checkpoint at night might watch a man digging a hole for an IED 100 metres away and would not try to shoot at him. It's a ludicrous situation.

""There has to be an immediate threat to life and that's a hard thing to prove. An IED does not count as an immediate threat.

""The Americans are different - their Rules of Engagement are pretty liberal. If they even suspect someone of laying a bomb, they can shoot them.""

I understand that the accidental killing of civilians by NATO forces is seen as a victory for the Taliban, but this is ridiculous.  Allowing a terrorist to place an IED that later kills NATO soldiers is also a victory for the Taliban.  At least the American soldiers are allowed to shoot the terrorists!

As the debate on the debt ceiling continues, there are a few things to keep in mind.  I personally have considered playing BINGO during Democrat press conferences using the words shared sacrifice, tax cuts for millionaires, two unfunded wars, taking benefits from seniors in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, etc.  These seem to be the talking points of the moment.  Notice that none of these talking points deal with spending.

Anyway, there are some people on the internet who have done the research and come up with some interesting numbers.

Newsbusters.org posted an article on Friday about the claim made in the New York Times that the debt ceiling problem was caused by the Bush tax cuts and the Republican refusal to raise revenues (that's Democrat-speak for increase taxes).  The article points out that there has been a 41 percent increase in spending since the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007.  The article further points out that the last Republican-created budget signed by President Bush in 2007 was for $2.73 trillion.  Expected tax receipts were $2.57 trillion.  Those numbers seem like science fiction compared to today's spending.

The article points out some of the creative math used in the New York Times article:

"In the Gray Lady's strange world, eliminating the Bush tax cuts - which might raise $379 billion a year - completely wipes out a $1.5 trillion deficit."

Wow,  Can I do that with my checkbook? 

On July 1, 2011, the Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog posted some of its findings about how the current Democrat talking points compare to facts regarding the deficit.  Glenn Kessler, who writes the blog reported:

"Clinton, in essence, was lucky to become president just as a revolution in computer and information technologies was unleashed.

"From 1992 to 1997, CBO estimated, revenue increased at an annual average of 7.7 percent in nominal terms, or about 2.4 percentage points faster than the growth of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy. CBO Deputy Director James L. Blum in 1998 attributed only 1 percentage point of that extra tax revenue to the 1993 budget deal. The rest, he said, came from capital gains.

"Between 1994 and 1999, realized capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded , with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30 percent of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP. (Linden says: "I can't really answer the question about how much Clinton had to do with the economy. He presided over it.")"

Don;t look for any of these inconvenient facts in the Democrat talking points.

This is a chart from a Heritage.org article written about the myths surrounding budget discussions.  The article was written on January 29, 2007!

 

 

One thing they did not predict--the spending has gone up much faster than the chart shows!

No, this is not an article about abortion--it's an article about light bulbs--yes, light bulbs.  Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that on Monday the House of Representatives will vote on H. R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act.

The bill states:

    "No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury.
    "No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective."

The bill is sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton and would allow Americans to buy and use any type of light bulbs they choose. 

The compact florescent lightbulbs, which the current legislation will force Americans to use in the near future, create an environmental hazard if broken.  Anyone who lives in the real world understands that occasionally light bulbs do break.  If you share your house with children or pets, this is not good.  It is time to give the American consumer the right to choose light bulbs.

Yesterday the Salem News posted a rather lengthy article about statements made in Mexico by Attorney General Eric Holder indicating that he was aware of Operation Fast and Furious long before the time stated in his testimony before Congress. 

The article reports:

"Holder openly proclaimed his connection to the operation in April 2009 during a publicized speech in Mexico, then told a Congressional Committee in May 2011, "I probably heard of Fast and Furious the first time in the last few weeks.""

In the age of video tapes of everything anyone has ever said, it will be interesting to see if this is even reported by the media and if it is, how Attorney General Holder will spin it.

The article also links to an article at Investors.com on July 8, which reports:

"Right there in the stimulus bill that no one in Congress bothered to read is $10 million for Project Gunrunner (aka Operation Fast and Furious), which resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and increased drug cartel violence.

"Right there in the "shovel ready" stimulus, no black humor intended, is a provision for $40 million for "state and local law enforcement assistance" along our border with Mexico and in high drug-trafficking areas, "of which $10 million shall be transferred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, salaries and expenses for the ATF Project Gunrunner.""

Please follow the links to read both articles--in both cases they provide a lot of background information that actually explains what went on with this program. 

The story of Operation Fast and Furious is one of a government out of control with no one paying attention.  Part of the blame falls directly on the Obama administration, part of the blame falls on Congress for not carefully reading the stimulus bill, part of the blame falls on the American public for not paying attention, and part of the blame falls on the major media for not doing its job of reporting the story.  This is a major scandal and should be on the network news every night.

Investors.com reported yesterday that Eric Holder's Justice Department has asked several major banks to relax their lending standards in order to make home ownership available to more Americans.  This is part of the Justice Department's new crackdown on alleged discrimination, which so far has netted the government more than $20 million in loan set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist.  Sounds like Chicago politics to me.

The article reports:

"Justice spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said the anti-discrimination notice "does not compel the banks to make loans to people who do not qualify." She said such measures are "essential to remedy the harmful effects of the banks' conduct."

"But industry analysts fear Attorney General Eric Holder is rekindling an anti-bank witch hunt launched by Attorney General Janet Reno in the 1990s, when Holder served as her deputy.

"Some blame that in part for the subprime boom, because banks were ordered to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities. That crackdown spurred the American Bankers Association to distribute to its thousands of members "fair-lend ing tool kits" advising the adoption of more permissive underwriting criteria to help inoculate them from prosecution."

Refusing to lend money to someone who cannot pay it back is not discrimination--it's good business! 

The article further reports:

"Justice confirmed it has asked banks to keep its methodologies, which include computer-based statistical analysis, secret.

""In certain circumstances, when a bank has requested details of our analysis, the department has requested that a defendant agree to a confidentiality agreement," Hinojosa told IBD.

"Critics say Holder's interpretation of civil-rights law is even more radical than Reno's.

"For the first time, prosecutors are judging banks for the secondary impact their policies have on entire minority communities, not just households. And they're ordering reparations accordingly.

"In announcing a recent $2 million settlement with Dallas-based PrimeLending, Civil Rights Division chief Tom Perez said, "We will require lenders to invest in the community that they've harmed."

"Another Reno protege, Perez has compared bankers to Klansmen. Only difference is, he said, bankers discriminate "with a smile" and "fine print." He said this kind of racism, though more subtle, is "every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood."

"Perez has put in place an infrastructure to enforce "fair lending" -- including a first-of-its-kind Fair Lending Unit staffed with more than 20 lawyers, economists and statisticians."

Making bad loans to a minority community does not help anyone.  Houses become vacant and everyone suffers.  What is needed here is a healthy dose of common sense.

Unfortunately, runaway spending is not a new thing to Washington.  In August 2010, the Heritage Foundation posted the following graph:

In 2010, Washington Will Spend 30,543 Dollars per Household

Washington politicians are continuing to spend money they simply do not have.  That is why there is a discussion of "raising the debt ceiling."  Think about that a minute.  What they want to do is increase the amount of money they can borrow.  There is no interest in fiscal discipline.  This is like a person who calls his credit card company after losing his job and saying, "I know my credit card is maxxed out, but I have lost my job and I need a higher credit limit."  Obviously, you would feel sympathy for the person--he just lost his main source of income--but would you raise his credit limit?  America has not lost it's main source of income--it has simply spent too much.  There is no reason to raise the credit limit.  The only way I would support raising the credit limit is with some REAL cuts in spending.  It's not about the revenue--it's about the spending.

Today the Boston Globe reported that the televison broadcast images of the Fourth of July fireworks in Boston were altered. 

The article reports:

"Mugar (David Mugar, the Boston-area businessman and philanthropist who has executive produced the show for nine years) said the added images were above board because the show was entertainment and not news. He said it was no different than TV drama producer David E. Kelley using scenes from his native Boston in his show "Boston Legal'' but shooting the bulk of each episode on a studio set in Hollywood."

I realize that this may seem like a small thing, but think again.  Many people (myself included) watch the fireworks on television because we don't have the patience to deal with Boston traffic.  We expect to see what we would see if we actually attended the event in person.  If we are not seeing exactly what is happening, we expect to be informed of that also.

I am not as concerned about the fact that the images were altered as I am about the fact that until viewers started questioning what they saw, no admission was made of the alterations.

Please follow the above link to the article to read the comments of some of the people who viewed the show who were familiar with the layout of Boston and realized that the pictures were altered.

Yesterday the Washington Times posted an article on the construction now going on at Ground Zero in New York City. 

The article reports:

"This Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks upon America, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will dedicate the massive, $600 million National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center.  What Americans have not been told is that this "memorial" will remake Ground Zero so that it does not acknowledge 9/11."

Amazing. 

The article goes on:

"Replacing all reminders of the attacks will be two immense "voids" with gigantic subterranean waterfalls designed to express exclusively, as per architect Michael Arad, the continuing "absence in our lives caused by these deaths."

"About 500 trees will be planted upon the site. They are, we are told by memorial officials, "traditional symbols of the rejuvenation of life." They also will eradicate all trace and memory of what stood there for 30 years and its destruction on Sept. 11."

Wow.  It gets even more amazing when you realize that they are building all these fountains and no restrooms (rightwinggranny.com) as reported on May 22.  The part of the facility that includes the bathrooms will open on the fall of 2012.  That's an awfully long time to wait for a bathroom.

An example of some of the omissions at the Ground Zero memorial:

"The National September 11 Memorial at the WTC will not include the iconic WTC "Sphere" - again, exactly because it is iconic. "The Sphere" stood in the center of the WTC plaza for 30 years as a symbol of world peace. On 9/11, though badly damaged (a piece of one of the planes tore through it) it survived the attacks in place and was embraced by many Americans as a symbol of the nation's strength and resiliency.

"That is why it cannot be returned.

"It sits at Battery Park, about a half-mile from Ground Zero, where it was installed March 11, 2002, the six-month anniversary of the attacks, as a "temporary" memorial. Battery Park is undergoing its own renovations, and "The Sphere" will have to moved.

"One 9/11 anniversary at Ground Zero, Mr. Arad told me that returning "The Sphere" would be "didactic." That is, it would tell us what to think.

"Somehow disposing of it is not telling us what to think.

"This is like banishing the USS Arizona from the USS Arizona memorial." 

I am sure that many Americans will visit this memorial once, but as word gets out as to what was done here and the political correctness involved, fewer people will actually be interested in going.  That is a shame.  Those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, deserve better than this.

On Wednesday, Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted an opinion piece on the Obama administration's current policy of dealing with captured terrorists. 

According to Mr. Thiessen, last week Vice Adm. William McRaven stated in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

"...that the Obama administration has no clear plan for handling captured terrorist leaders if they are caught alive outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. McRaven testified that that "in many cases" suspects captured in secret are taken to a U.S. Navy ship until they can be tried in a U.S. court or transferred to the custody of an allied country, but if neither option is feasible, he said, the terrorist is let go. "If we can't do either one of those, then we will release that individual," McRaven told the committee."

Yes, you read that right.  The Vice Admiral testified that American forces have been letting captured terrorists go rather than continue the Bush policy of sending the terrorists to Guantanamo. 

Mr. Thiessen concludes:

"Until now, it was believed that the administration was not capturing senior terrorists alive outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, but simply killing them. Last year, The Post reported that there had been no known high-value detentions by the United States since Obama took office. Now, it appears, we have indeed been capturing such terrorists -- and setting them free. If so, this is an outrage. With Adm. McRaven's testimony, and today's news, the administration owes the American people -- and the United States Congress -- some answers, and fast."

This may be politically expedient--but it is strategically stupid.  Terrorists commit terrorism.  Why in the world would our military even consider turning them loose?  If this is the current policy, it shows not only a total disregard for the safety of the American people, it also shows a total disregard for the lives of the soldiers overseas.  This is the sort of policy that causes America's enemies to view us as a paper tiger.  The policy needs to be brought to the public's attention and changed quickly.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article on the United Nations initiative Agenda 21.  I posted a story about an executive order signed by President Obama that will facilitate the implementation of this program in the United States (see rightwinggranny.com on June 15th).  Now the Tea Party is sounding the alarm about what Agenda 21 will do to freedom and national sovereignty of America. 

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

""This is as vast, complicated issue that invades every corner of our lives. Al Gore promised us a 'wrenching transformation' of our society -- this is it," DeWeese (American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese) told TheDC. "What we are fighting is a move toward top down control-the exact opposite if the system America started with. Special interests, NGOs [Non-governmental organizations], and quasi official government groups like the American Planning Association are descending on local government and changing it through the establishment of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments. They don't answer to the people.""

"Congress has never approved the implementation of Agenda 21, though Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush all signed executive orders to implement it."

So far, this program is under the radar, but it needs to be brought to the attention of the American people.

The thing to keep in mind here is that the United Nations, like all bureaucracies, seeks to expand its power and control.  The idea of one world government is not alien to the United Nations at this point.  When the United Nations began, the freedom-loving countries held the power.  That is no longer true.  The largest power bloc in the United Nations at this time is the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), a fifty-seven state group whose goal is the establishment of a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia Law.  Although Agenda 21 does not seem to move in that direction, it does move in the direction of abolishing national sovereignty, which could create enough chaos for anything to happen.

On Tuesday Newsbusters posted a rather long article on the debt ceiling, treasury bonds and how government spending and interest payments work.  I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will try to summarize some of it here.

The article lists the monthly interest payments on our debt so far this year and points out that interest is by far the greatest monthly expense associated with our debt.  If we continue to make those payments, our debt remains in good standing.

The article then lists our monthly tax receipts and points out that those receipts far exceed our monthly interest payments.  The article reports that in fiscal 2011 we have made interest payments of $275 billion and taken in revenues of $1.48 trillion.

The article posts graphs of treasury bills and stock prices indicating that the financial markets are not overly concerned about the debt ceiling. 

The article concludes:

"Consider that last August, we brought in $164 billion in receipts. As it should be equal to or greater than that this year, we will easily afford the roughly $35 billion of interest expense without raising the debt ceiling.

"Our monthly Social Security and Medicare outlays in May were $51 billion. Assuming they're close to the same in August, we'd still be left with $78 billion to pay military members, and a variety of other things.

"Will we have enough to meet all of our obligations?

"Certainly not. Like what's happened in the past, many government employees and contractors would be given IOUs.

"BUT, unlike what the Obama-loving media are telling people, we won't have to default on our debt, we won't have to forego payments to America's seniors, and we won't have to hold back the salaries of our military members in the field.

"Just imagine how much different this debate would be if our press were actually presenting the truth to the people rather than the hysteria-driving nonsense that's been on display of late."

What we are currently seeing in regard to the debt ceiling is political theatre orchestrated by the Obama administration and cheered along by the media.  We need to ignore it and watch what is actually going on in regard to the runaway spending of this administration.

Fox News reported on Tuesday that a Somali member of an Al Qaeda-linked group was captured and held on the USS Boxer of the coast of Africa while he was interrogated.

The article reports:

"Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, in his mid-twenties, was interrogated "extensively" and for "some time" by military personnel and he provided useful intelligence, according to one source.  He was advised of his Miranda rights at the time, according to an administration official, but U. S. law enforcement were ultimately able to interview him, and he continued to offer useful information, according to administration officials."

A federal grand jury in New York State has indicted him, and he is expected to be tried there in a civilian trial (given all the rights of an American citizen)

The Washington Times posted an editorial on this story yesterday, commenting:

"The Warsame indictment is an end run around Congress, which last year voted to bar the transfer of terrorist detainees to the United States for trial or any other purpose. The 2011 National Defense Authorization Act stipulated that no Department of Defense funds "may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions" any detainee who "is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States" and was held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In his Jan. 7 signing statement, Mr. Obama called the restrictions "a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests" and maintained that the "prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation and must be among the options available to us." He pledged that his administration would "work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions" and "seek to mitigate their effects.""

Just for some perspective, this is how we handled this sort of thing in World War II:

"During World War II, eight Germans landed on our shores in 1942 bent on sabotage. Caught before they could carry out their missions, under FDR's presidential proclamation they were hauled before a secret military tribunal and found guilty. Meeting in an emergency session, the Supreme Court upheld the tribunal's authority. Justice was swift: six of the men were put to death--a sentence much more harsh than would have been allowed in a civil trial."

The above quote is from a book review by the University Press of Kansas of Louis Fisher's book NAZI SABOTEURS ON TRIAL.  Even though Mr. Fisher wrote the book to express his opinion that what was done in that case was wrong, the fact remains that the saboteurs were dealt with quickly and effectively.

We are at war.  There are people in the world who would like to destroy American freedom and our way of life.  We can do what is necessary to protect and preserve our freedom or we can become the laughing stock of the world because we protect the people who have stated they want to destroy us.  As Americans, we make that decision.  Our elections need to reflect what we believe regarding terrorism and the safety of America.  I'm not sure our current elected officials understand the need to protect our country.

The Daily Caller reported today on secret testimony given by acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson about the involvement of the ATF in selling guns to Mexican drug cartels. 

The article reports:

"One key takeaway from the meeting was that Melson acknowledged to investigators that agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns afterwards. Straw purchasers are people who could technically legally buy guns in the U.S. but their intent was to turn around and sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.

"Another point Melson clarified for investigators was that the ATF group carrying out the mission of Operation Fast and Furious was placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney's office. The U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, is a political appointee of the Obama administration."

The article further details the lack of cooperation by the Department of Justice with the Congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious.  It is also interesting that Mr. Melson reported that he and other senior ATF officials were asked to reassign every major official involved in Operation Fast and Furious. 

The article concluded:

"Melson also confirmed many suspicions Issa and Grassley had of the existence of documents and other evidence in Justice Department possession. The Republican members called on Holder to be more transparent and honest in responses to their requests for information, and that DOJ officials should be informed of their right to communicate with Congressional committees without Holder's oversight.

""We hope that the Department will take a much more candid and forthcoming approach in addressing these very serious matters with the Committee," Issa and Grassley wrote. "If other important fact witnesses like Mr. Melson have a desire to communicate directly with the Committees they should be informed that they are free to do so. They should also be notified that if they are represented by personal counsel, they may appear with personal counsel rather than with Department lawyers.""

I hope Congress will hold the Justice Department accountable for the incredibly bad judgment they exercised in going forward with Operation Fast and Furious.  Americans deserve an explanation of what happened and those responsible need to be fired.

Tony the Tiger was born in1952 as the mascot for Kellogg's frosted flakes.  He has been there since I was a young child.  I love Tony the Tiger.  I also don't eat frosted flakes.  There is nothing wrong with them, I just like other things.  Obviously, Tony the Tiger has not had a major impact of my eating habits.  I also doubt that he has had a major impact on the eating habits of my children and grandchildren.  So why in the world is the Federal Trade Commission getting ready to kill Tony the Tiger (what would PETA say?)?

On Friday, CNS News reported that the Federal Trade Commission is defending its proposals to change food and beverage marketing to children ages 2-17, which industry and legal critics say would lead to the end of iconic commercial characters such Tony the Tiger and Toucan Sam and create free speech issues.

The article reports:

"The interagency report is intended to help the food industry determine which items are "appropriate and desirable to market to children to encourage a healthful diet." The group's report says that by the year 2016, "all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles. Such foods should be formulated to: (A) make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet; and (B) minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight."

"Vladeck ( David Vladeck, director of the bureau of consumer protection for the FTC) said the government is not trying to ban Toucan Sam. However, he said the interagency group would hope to see sugary children's cereals change their formula."

The Federal Government does not have the right to tell (or even encourage) a company to alter its product.  Sugar frosted flakes have been in existence for almost sixty years; the obesity problem in America has not existed for sixty years; why are we placing the blame on a product, rather than a behavior?  Not every obese person is obese because of their eating habits, but many are.  Killing Tony the Tiger will not change those eating habits.  Tony the Tiger did not cause overeating, and Tony the Tiger will not cure it.  Why are we wasting government money on this nonsense?

Friday before the Fourth of July is a great time to release news--people are engrossed in making their holiday plans and might not notice.  I have previously reported on one of the stories released Friday--the lack of stimulus in the stimulus program, but there was another piece of news released on Friday--the growth and salaries of President Obama's staff. 

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that President Obama's 454 White House aides will make a total salary of $37,121,463 this year.  About that shared sacrifice...

The current salary paid to White House aides represents an increase of nearly $4 million from 2008, the last year of President George W. Bush's term.  It also incudes an increase of seven staff members. 

It seems as if the Los Angeles Times is not too impressed with this news, the article reports:

"Because Americans would no doubt be pleased to know of the Obama staff's economic success amid the bleak national scene for so many others, we saved the information for today, when most Americans who are still employed are back at their own jobs and can share the joy.

"The 2011 White House salary report does not include mention of the 41 unidentified Obama staff members who owe the Internal Revenue Service $831,000 in back taxes. That report came out last fall..."

I hope the voters remember this next November.

The Weekly Standard posted a story on Sunday about the actual impact of the government stimulus program.  The program cost $666 billion and is said to have created or saved just under 2.4 million private or public jobs.  That amounts to a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job. 

The aricle points out:

"Furthermore, the council (White House's Council of Economic Advisors) reports that, as of two quarters ago, the "stimulus" had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs -- or 288,000 more than it has now.  In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the "stimulus" than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the "stimulus" has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs."

This seems to be an awful lot of money spent on something that did not work.  And we still have to pay back the money! 

The article points out that at the end of 2008, when President Obama was about to take office, the national debt was $9.986 trillion.  The national debt is now $14,467 trillion and climbing.  It is definitely time to cut spending! 

We are all influenced by the way the media tells a story--whether the telling is accurate or not.  Most of us have a tendency to accept what we hear.  I am often guilty of that.  I have heard a lot of stories about the "right of return" and the role it plays in the negotiations for a Palestinian State, but I must admit the following story is an angle I have never considered.

Steven Plaut posted a story at Front Page Magazine which asks the question, "What if the Tories who supported the British during the American Revolution had been treated by Britain the way the Arab countries have treated the Palestinians?"

The article points out:

"Like all wars of independence, both the Israeli and American wars were in fact civil wars. In both cases, religious sectarianism played an important role in defining the opposing forces, although for Americans, taxation was even more important. (Israelis suffered under abominable taxation only after independence.) Among the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt to establish the Anglican Church, or Church of England, as the official bishopric of the colonies. Anglicans were the largest ethnic group opposing independence in the 1770s, as were Palestinian Muslims in the 1940s, although in both cases, other religious/ethnic groups were also represented in the anti-independence movement."

The story continues:

"In both the Israeli and American wars for independence, anti-independence refugees fled the country in order to live in areas under the control of their political allies. Many who opposed independence nevertheless stayed put. After the wars ended, these people generally found the devil was not as bad as they had feared, and were permitted to live as tolerated political minorities with civil rights. (This in spite of the fact that many refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new states, sometimes for decades.)"

Then the similarities between the two groups begins to break down:

"The Tory refugees were regarded by all as the problem of Britain. The American patriots allowed small numbers to return. Others attempted to return illegally and were killed. But most languished across the partition lines in eastern British Canada, mainly in what would become Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The refugees would never be granted the "right to return." In most cases, they would never even be granted compensation for property; Benjamin Franklin was among the leading opponents of any such compensation.

"At this point, the similarity between the Palestinian refugees and the Tory Loyalists breaks down. The British, unlike the Arabs, did a great deal to settle their refugees, rather than force them into festering camps, and allotted $20 million for their resettlement. The Tory refugees quickly became a non-problem, and never played any subsequent role in British-American relations."

Please follow the above link to the article and read the rest of the story.  We have forgotten how we came to be America, and if we don't quickly remember, we will make some really dumb mistakes internationallly.

From the USA Flag Site

America, The Beautiful Lyrics
by Katharine Lee Bates - 1913

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassion'd stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev'ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev'ry gain divine!

O Beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Happy Birthday, America!

This is a link to a video that includes Ray Charles singing "America the Beautiful."

Thank you to all of our military past and present who have made our freedom possible.

The Heritage Foundation posted an article on Friday about the impact of high energy prices on jobs in America.  The article points out the obvious fact that America does not have a coherent energy policy--we haven't had one in the past forty years. 

The article states:

"CEA's (Consumer Energy Alliance) study indicates the offshore energy potential of the United States is conservatively estimated at 45 billion barrels of oil and 183 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough oil to power 60 million vehicles for 25 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million American homes for 57 years.

""Demand for oil and natural gas is increasing," said National Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi. "Yet we only explore for oil and gas in about 15 percent of the nation's offshore areas -- the same areas that were available when Richard Nixon was president."

"Apart from boosting job creation and steadying oil prices, offshore energy production would garner billions for the U.S. Treasury. Declining production in the Gulf of Mexico alone could cost the federal government more than $1 billion in revenue this year."

Drill, baby, drill. 

Meanwhile, Washington says no.  The article reports:

"Production in the western Gulf of Mexico dropped nearly one-third of a million barrels per day since last April, and the increased production in 2010 is a result of increased horizontal drilling in North Dakota. We can't drill off the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast, or the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Environmental Appeals Board withheld air quality permits preventing Shell from moving forward to develop 27 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of Alaska. The Environmental Protection Agency already issued two air permits, but Earth Justice filed a petition to review the permits, delaying the process."

If alternative energy is allowed to develop in a free-market environment, it eventually will become practical.  Meanwhile, fossil fuel is the current coin of the realm.  We can accept that fact or we can hurt our economy and the American people by fighting the energy environment in which we currently exist.

On Friday Fox News posted an article written by Juan Williams about a tax-exempt group called Media Matters.  Media Matters was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock.  Eric E. Burns has been president of the group since it was founded.

Media Matters describes itself as a progressive (liberal) media watchdog group.  There is nothing wrong with that--everyone should be watching the media for accuracy.  However, recently, they have morphed into something else. 

Mr. Williams reports:

"Since they bagan work in 2004, however, the watchdog spirit of the group's founding has turned into an outright assault on its political opponents.  That means they delight in attacking anyone with a conservative point of view on radio or TV.  In fact, they have now announced they are engaged in a "war" against Fox News Channel and anyone who appears on their airwaves.  They have also admitted to engaging in a despicable campaign to dig up dirt on Fox News executives and producers in an attempt to do personal damage to people who are guilty of offering the public political perspectives they find disagreeable."

It seems as if the media watchdog has gone rabid.  Please follow the link above to read the entire article by Juan Williams.  Mr. Williams does a very good job of defending true liberalism as practiced by people such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bobby Kennedy. Somehow, the concept of civilized debate has been lost by some of the people who currently claim to be liberals.

The first paragraph of the United States Constitution states:

"We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

One of the purposes of the Union was common defence.  I fear that we have forgotten our roots.

On Thursday, Andrew McCarthy reported at The Corner at National Review Online that the Obama Administration is opening formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. McCarthy reports:

"The Brotherhood is the world's most important Islamist organization. It is openly, unabashedly committed to the destruction of the United States and the West. In typical Obama fashion, this disastrous decision to engage America's avowed enemies has been couched as the mere continuation of prior policy: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is reported to have confirmed that the U.S. would "resume" contacts which had "occurred in recent years." But make no mistake about it, this is a new policy." 

This is not a good idea.  Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy reminds us of the Muslim Brotherhoods goals (as stated in documents submitted to the court in the Holy Land Foundation Case):

First, here's the MB's creed:  "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope."  (Source: Husain Haqqani and Hillel Fradkin, "Islamist Parties: Going Back to the Origins.")

Second, here's the Ikwhan's mission in America: 

"A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, sabotaging its miserable house with their [i.e., Americans'] hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions." (Source: Muslim Brotherhood's "Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goals of the Group," entered into evidence by the Department of Justice in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-finance trial. Archived at the NEFA Foundation.)   

I guess the obviousl question here is what is the world do we hope to achieve by entering into a dialogue with people who want to destroy us?      

Scott Johnson at Power Line also comments on the idea of opening up a discourse with the Muslim Brotherhood:

"The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and most important Islamist organization in the Arab world. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a handle on what it is up to. It conceives of its mission as a grand jihad of global Islamization. Patrick Poole makes the salient point that the Brotherhood has spawned virtually every Islamic terrorist organization in the world. Hamas, for example, is a formal branch of the Brotherhood. Discover the Networks usefully summarizes its history."

This is not only negotiating with terrorists, it is inviting them into your living room.  The first responsibility of the government is to protect its people.  Negotiating with terrorists never ends well, and it does not protect Americans.

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that there has been another unexpected consequence of the collective bargaining bill passed in Wisconsin. 

The article reports on events in Racine County:

"Last June, the county took Racine inmates out of their jail cells and put them behind lawn movers. They were cutting the grass in areas that the county executive says were neglected, due to budget cuts. Local unions filed a grievance saying work like that should be done by union members.

 

"A judge agreed, but now with the new collective bargaining rules in effect, that's the kind of thing the unions can no longer negotiate. That means the county is putting the inmates back to work and adding to their to-do list.

"Racine County Executive James Ladwig said,"We're gonna have them do landscaping at county buildings, have them pick up trash on the roads.  So we can use some of the county personnel to do difficult tasks, such as putting in a parking lot at the park.""

The inmates are also learning job skills they may be able to use when they are released.  Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Today's Wall Street Journal posted an article about what is going on behind the scenes in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  In recent months, Iran has been shipping large quantities of weapons to be used against Americans into both of those countries. 

The Wall Street Journal reports:

"Such arms shipments would escalate the shadow competition for influence playing out between Tehran and Washington across the Middle East and North Africa, fueled by U.S. preparations to draw down forces from two wars and the political rebellions that are sweeping the region.

"The U.S. is wrestling with the aftermath of uprisings against longtime Arab allies from Tunisia to Bahrain, and trying to leave behind stable, friendly governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran appears to be trying to gain political ground amid the turmoil and to make the U.S. withdrawals as quick and painful as possible."

The thing that we need to remember is that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that it is his responsibility to usher in what some Shiite Muslims believe is the Muslim 'last days.'  It is his belief that creating chaos will hasten the coming of the Twelfth Imam, which will in turn usher in the world-wide caliphate in which Iran will have a major role.  In this religious philosophy, there is no value to current life--Muslims killed creating the chaos or as innocent bystanders will immediately go to paradise, so their lives are not as important as the end goal. 

Meanwhile, since 1979, Iran has slowly been advancing on its goal of being the single important power in the Middle East.  Our departure from Iraq and Afghanistan will leave a vacuum that Iran will be happy to fill.  Once Iran activates its nuclear arsenal, neither Israel nor the United States will have any friends in the Middle East.  Iran will control the flow of the world's oil supply through the Straits of Hormuz and aim its missles at Europe (and eventually the United States).  Unless we are energy independent as a nation and have perfected our nuclear shield by then, we have a problem.

This is the link to the video and transcript of President Obama's Weekly Address.  This is the link to the transcript of the Republican response given by Senator Dan Coats of Indiana.

President Obama states:

"I ran for President because I believed in an America where ordinary folks could get ahead; where if you worked hard, you could have a better life. That's been my focus since I came into office, and that has to be our focus now. It's one of the reasons why we're working to reduce our nation's deficit. Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can't afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs."

He rightfully states that we have to cut spending and help businesses gain the confidence they need to grow jobs.  Then the President proceeds with the class warfare he has been known for:

"Now, it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can't afford them. Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help - then we'll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else. We've got to say to a student, 'You don't get a college scholarship.' We have to say to a medical researcher, 'You can't do that cancer research.' We might have to tell seniors, 'You have to pay more for Medicare.'"

Tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires are not the problem.  Corporate jets are not the problem.  Trying to get more money out of people who have enough lawyers to move their money around in order to avoid taxes is never going to increase revenue.  It should also be mentioned at this point that President Obama considers individuals who make more than $200,000 per year deserving of a tax increase.  In some states, that is not excessive income.  Closing loopholes for millionaires and corporations might be a good idea in a healthy economy, but only with lower tax rates.  Any increases on corporations or business owners at this point is only going to be passed on the the consumer and further slow down the economy.  He is not comparing apples to apples.

The Republican response points out some of the history of the current debt crisis:

""Unfortunately, the President's economic plan of spending and borrowing has failed. Over the past two years, debt has skyrocketed 35 percent to our nation's limit of $14.3 trillion. The annual deficit is now three times greater than the highest deficit of the previous administration. And today, nearly 14 million Americans are without work.

""If these numbers aren't alarming enough, then the President should consider the numerous warnings from the financial markets both here and abroad. The eyes of the world are fixed on the U.S. to see if we have the political courage and moral sense to solve our debt crisis.

""The President and Democrats in Congress must recognize that their game plan is not working. It's time to acknowledge that more government and higher taxes is not the answer to our problem. It's time for bold action and a new plan to address our current crisis."

Senator Coats further points out:

""The Hoosier model is a necessary first step to repairing our country's finances. And this week, every Senate Republican took that step by committing to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Speaker of the House has committed to bringing the Balanced Budget Amendment to a vote later this month, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to fighting for a vote in the Senate as well. Broke or balanced, that's the choice before us.

""Now some doubt our ability to overcome this fiscal crisis. But the problem we face is not insurmountable. We have overcome major challenges in the past. Times of trial have always produced moments of great leadership that rally the American people."

To slightly alter the words of the Bill Clinton campaign, "It's the spending, stupid!"

Hot Air posted the following quote from Harry Reid yesterday:

"[It's] time we return to the type of fiscal discipline that democrats brought to Washington in the 90′s when democrats in the Congress and White House balanced the budget and used the surplus to do what Mr. President? To pay down the debt."

You can even follow the link above to hear him say it in person.  Maybe some Americans will believe that what he is saying is true, but I hope the voting public has a better memory than that.

This graph below is from Heritage.org (the Heritage Foundation--a conservative website that does research on current issues).  There are a few things that need to be pointed out in reference to Senator Reid's statement about the fiscal responsibility of the Democrats.  The first thing to remember is that any budget bills are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives.  The House of Representatives controls the spending. 

In October of 2010, the Washington Examiner observed:

"There is no doubt the 1994 revolution changed congress and passed important legislation such as welfare reform and the first balanced budget in over a generation..."

The article goes on to explain the mistakes the Republicans made in 1994, but again the Republican congress controlled the spending and cut the deficit.  In 2006, the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.  After the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  (So why didn't they pass a budget?????)

The graph shows the years spending went down and the years it went up.  Our spending has increased dramatically since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.  There have been two very expensive stimulus programs that have substantially increased our debt.  If that is the definition of fiscal discipline, we will never balance the budget!  In the 1990's the Democrats did not have the power to impact the budget.

Senator Reid either has a very bad memory or a very tenuous relationship with the truth.

If the states are the laboratories for the federal government, Washington should be paying close attention to California and Texas right now.  California is losing businesses and tax revenue (despite raising taxes) and Texas is gaining businesses and tax revenue without raising taxes.  Now California has tried a new approach.

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that requires online businesses to collect sales tax.  In response, Amazon.com and other online retailers have declared that they no longer see the business sense in remaining in the state of California.  Amazon.com and Overstock.com both announced that they will be closing out all of their affiliates in California (affiliates are small business that sell products through Amazon and other online sites and receive a small commission).  Congratulations, Governor Brown, you just created more unemployment.

The article quotes the statement of Amazon.com to their affiliates:

""We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive," Amazon said in an email to its affiliates. "It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue. We deeply regret that we must take this action.""

Raising taxes (or instituting new taxes) does not raise revenue--it only causes people to change their behavior to avoid those taxes.  At a time when some Democrat Senators are accusing the Republicans of sabotaging the economy, those Senators need to look at the results of the actions of Governor Jerry Brown.  I don't think the Democrats are purposely ruining the economy; I just think that their policies automatically do that.

The chart below is from Power Line Blog.  For a larger verson, follow the link to the article and click on the chart.  It is a very clear picture of who the 'special interest' groups are.  Frankly, I was floored by the chart--I had no idea the unions were spending the kind of money they are spending on elections.  Money buys advertisements.  All of us need to be very skeptical of any candidate or political advertising we hear over the next year and a half--there will be a lot of misinformation out there.  If we want to change the direction of America, we need to be paying attention.

 

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from July 2011 listed from newest to oldest.

June 2011 is the previous archive.

August 2011 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.