My impression is that because things are moving so fact in Iran, anything more than an hour old should not be considered an update, but Pajamas Media has been the most current and reliable source on the continuing crisis.  Michael Ledeen has a post there this morning about a letter he has received that claims to be from Mousavi’s office.  Although Mr. Ledeen is skeptical about the source of the letter, he believes that it reflects the view of the supporters of Mousavi.  The letter is addressed to President Obama and relates to his recent comments on the Iranian situation.  Part of the letter states:

“Dear Mr. President,

In the name of  the Iranian people, we want you to know that when you recently made the statement “Achmadinejad or Mousavi? Two of a kind,” we consider this as a grave and deep insult, not just to Mr. Mousavi but especially against the judgment of the Iranian people, against our moral conviction and intelligence, especially those of the young generation that comprises a population of 31 million.

It is a specially grave insult for those who are now fighting for democracy and freedom, and an unwarranted gift and even praise for Mr. Khamenei, whose security forces are now killing peaceful Iranians in the streets of every major city in the country.”

Actually, that statement by President Obama is one of the few things I totally agree with him on!!  Although I have been seeing and reading reports that Mousavi has changed from the revolutionary leader he was in the 1980’s, I am somewhat skeptical.  Mousavi was not supported by the mullahs because of his close association with Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former Iranian leader, not because he was going to bring freedom to the country. 

This situation in Iran bears watching because whatever the outcome, the people in power will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.  I sincerely hope that freedom for the Iranians is the eventual outcome, but I am not optimistic.  

The “Cash For Clunkers” Bill passed the Senate on Friday, June 19, and is headed to the President’s desk for his signature.  Some of the repercussions of this bill are going to be interesting.  When I did an internet search on “cash for clunkers”, I found ads from junk yards willing to sell their clunkers to consumers so that the consumers could get government money to buy a new car.  According to one website, there will only be $1 billion (only??) spent, so you have to move fast if you want any money. 

American Thinker posted an article today detailing what “Cash For Clunkers” will actually mean in terms of dollars and impact of the automobile sector of the economy.  The article points out:

“It got this crazy in part because of Federal mileage and other requirements that ignore what people really want in a car and in a fuel supply.  As recently reported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the death rate per million vehicles was 44 for SUVs and 35 for large cars, while for small cars it was 96, or more than double!”

“It got this crazy also because in a decades long fit of self sabotage, the Federal government banned off-shore drilling for most of our coast line and on land in Alaska. The ban has been critical in keeping the price of gas high. When the market realized that the ban might expire in September, 2008 creating more supply, the price of oil fell from a peak of $147 per barrel to a low of $32 per barrel, over a 75% drop. Now that the Administration and Congress have effectively re-instituted the ban, the price of oil has more than doubled again. The real point of the legislation is to goose car sales. But rather than create unsustainable phony demand that requires a voucher, wouldn’t we all be better off with a lower gasoline price so the average American had more money to spend?  And wouldn’t it be better to get our own oil out of our own ground and our own seabed, collect taxes on it, create American jobs by so doing, support the dollar in the process, enhance our national security and lower the price of gas for every US citizen?”

 

As the North Korean weapons ship disappears from the news and Iran erupts into turmoil over a very questionable election (How can you count fifty million paper ballots in half an hour?), according to the Washington Post, the Senate is dealing with the truly serious matters.  The Senate passed a bill yesterday making way for a joint congressional resolution and the latest attempt by the federal government to take responsibility for 2 1/2 centuries of slavery. 

Please don’t misunderstand.  I am strongly opposed to any form of slavery anywhere.  I think at least 99 per cent of the people in this country regret slavery.  America is one of the countries that no long enslaves people.  We have been one of the countries that speaks out against slavery.  I just wonder at what point we stop apologizing for taking part in something that was acceptable worldwide at the time we were doing it.  It was wrong–but it was also part of the cultural norm of the time.  I am grateful for William Wilberforce and the role he played in ending slavery (see the movie, Amazing Grace, which tells the story), but I think we can stop apologizing some time soon.

This may be a step toward Americans paying reparations to descendants of slaves.  Which Americans will pay the reparations, which Americans are descendants of slaves, does that include indentured servants (which were part of our early history also)?  What if your ancestors weren’t here during slavery (either as a slave or a master)?  Do you still have to pay?  Can you still collect?  Do we owe reparations to the families of soldiers killed in the Civil War who were fighting to end slavery?  Can anyone imagine the nightmare of bureaucracy this is going to create in order to be sorted out?  I think we are about to see the law of unintended consequences played out again in our national politics.

WCAI.FM, National Public Radio’s Cape Cod Radio Station has kept track of the debate on putting windmills off the coast of Massachusetts.  The first part of the article deals with local progress on the issue:

“The Cape Cod Commission has submitted an appeal to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, claiming the state Energy Facilities Siting Board overstepped its authority when it overruled the commission and gave Cape Wind all the local and regional permits it needs to move forward; Gov. Deval Patrick sent some folks to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy to hear people’s thoughts on placing wind turbines on public lands; the first floating wind turbine has been installed; and a new survey finds that a goodly portion of Massachusetts residents are concerned that NIMBYism has impeded the Cape Wind project.”

This is an interesting issue.  I live in Massachusetts, and to be honest, I thought the idea of windmills had successfully been killed by the Kennedy family and Walter Cronkite.  I knew the governor was pro windmill, but his popularity has been dropping like a stone, so I am surprised to see him going ahead on this.  I believe moving ahead is a good idea, I guess that’s why I’m surprised to see it happening.

Anyway, now the story moves to Washington, D. C.  President Obama is creating The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force, which will make recommendations to the president on protecting ocean and Great Lake resources as they experience “growing demands” from “renewable energy, shipping and aquaculture.”  Good grief–more government!!

The link above is to the NPR station blog which deals with the ongoing saga of wind power in Massachusetts.  It points out that there are four other states preparing to set up wind turbines–New York, Texas, Rhode Island, and Delaware.  I strongly suggest you follow the link in the first paragraph of this post and read the entire story.  It looks like we are going to have zones in the ocean just as we do in our cities!

Yesterday the House Democrats unveiled their healthcare proposed.  According to The Hill yesterday:

“Though the Democrats have established a clear target for expanding coverage, they acknowledged that questions remain about how to pay for the bill, which will require a combination of politically difficult cuts to Medicare and Medicaid along with some new taxes. Healthcare bills being written in the Senate have been estimated to cost more than $1 trillion.”

One of the problems with the proposed bill is that it will create a government-run healthcare plan that would complete for business with private healthcare insurance companies.  This is basically unfair competition.  The government can set the reimbursement rates on hospital and physician services that are so low that private companies cannot complete with the costs of the government program.  This is not only detrimental to hospitals and physicians, it will eventually drive private health insurance out of business.  This will eventually end competition in the healthcare industry.  Industries without competition have no incentive to become more efficient–instead they generally become bloated and less efficient.

The other aspect of this that is not being discussed is the amount of information the government will have access to about all of us if this bill is passed.  Do you really want the government to know everything about your medical history and current medical problems? 

If you truly want to improve out healthcare, pass tort reform.  Change the way medical lawsuits are handled–bring reason into the courtroom.  That will cut the cost of malpractice insurance and thus cut the cost of medical care for all of us.

We have all heard the news that the destroyer USS John McCain is preparing to intercept a North Korean ship believed to be carrying weapons material they are barred by the UN from transferring.  To anyone over the age of 60, this bears a strong resemblance to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. 

President John Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev on June 3, 1961.  The meeting did not go well for Kennedy.  Khrushchev took a particularly harsh stance over Berlin–he began erecting the Berlin Wall in August of that year.  He had judged Kennedy a weak President and intended to take full advantage of that fact.  The Soviets placed missiles in Cuba, and the US imposed a naval blockade on Cuba.  On October 24, Russian ships carrying missiles to Cuba turned back, and the world breathed a sigh of relief.  Khrushchev agreed (Oct. 28) to withdraw the missiles and dismantle the missile sites.  The blockade ended on November 20, 1962.  What we didn’t know at the time was that a deal had been worked out behind the scenes–the United States, in return, pledged not to invade Cuba, and subsequently secretly removed ballistic missiles it had placed in Turkey.  The American President had been judged as weak, and a crisis followed.

Today, North Korea, believing we will not respond in any meaningful way, is planning to launch a missile in the direction of Hawaii on July 4th.  They are also transporting nuclear material, weapons, or technology in defiance of a UN resolution (again, without any fear of consequences).  I have no idea what our correct response should be.  The world should be grateful that I am not in charge–I think my trigger finger would accidently slip as a approached the ship believed to be carrying the material! 

America cannot protect itself solely by sweet words and apologies.  There is a West African proverb Theodore Roosevelt quoted frequently, “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”  Speaking softly is a great idea–but don’t forget your stick!!

I have recently reported on the attempted firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  What I was unaware of at the time was that he is the third inspector general to be fired or pressured by the Obama administration in the past two weeks.

According to Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com in an article he posted yesterday, Senator Charles Grassley of Iowa has started demanding answers as to why these ‘watchdogs’ who are supposed to operate above politics are being strong armed.  These are the three stories:

“The positions themselves indicate where the White House wants to go with its efforts.  Barofsky ruffled feathers in April when his watchdog report showed that the Obama administration had placed insufficient safeguards on Porkulus spending.   This later caused Joe Biden to shrug and tell the media, “Some people are being scammed already,” as if it wasn’t the job of the administration to stop it from happening.  Barofsky now has a leash around his neck, with the White House insisting that he answers only to Treasury.”…

“(Gerald) Walpin stands between the White House and their desire to use AmeriCorps as a reward system for their political allies and to use government money for the kind of “community organizing” that put Obama in the White House. His report to Congress made that difficult in Sacramento, where Mayor Johnson had been blocked from receiving federal grant money for his admitted earlier fraud. Walpin’s independence had to be removed, and in this case, Walpin had to be smeared to make it stick.

“The third incident came last week at the International Trade Commission, where Judith Gwynne worked independent of the White House, and which will be a critical position as Obama reshapes trade arrangements around the world. An ITC employee earlier this year “forcibly removed” paperwork from Gwynne. Rather than back the IG after Grassley wrote a letter demanding answers, the political appointees at the ITC dumped her.”

It looks as if we have a group of thugs running this administration.  I hope the Congress has enough backbone to rein them in. 

This is not a political post.  It’s just kudos for a job well done to a hardworking niece.  Please follow this link to YouTube to see the video of a great report by Bettina Haymann Chavanne.

OK.  I admit, I’m an early ‘boomer’, so this subject hits a little close to home.  The Wall Street Journal ran an article on June 10th about blaming the ‘boomers’.  I haven’t linked to it because I believe it is on the subscription side of the website, but I will try to condense it for you.

“Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, 60 years old, told the graduating class of Butler University last month that boomers have been “self-absorbed, self-indulgent and all too often just plain selfish.”

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, 55, told Grinnell College graduates in Iowa that his was “the grasshopper generation, eating through just about everything like hungry locusts.”

And Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, at 44 barely a boomer himself, told seniors at Colorado College that the national creed of one generation standing on the shoulders of the next was at risk “because our generation has not been faithful enough to our grandparents’ example.””

Good grief!!  When are we going to roll up our sleeves, do whatever is necessary, and stop blaming everyone else.  Yes, the boomers were a bunch of selfish, overindulged, self-centered jerks who knew everything–just like a lot of generations before them.  The thing was–there were a whole lot more of them and they formed a major demographic.  You still see evidence of that–oldies stations.  Generally speaking, the oldies stations play music from about 1965 to 1975 or so.  That represents the teenage years of a large part of the boomers.  We are still a scary group demographically.  But let’s look at some other aspects of the group.

Boomers in the mid to late 1960’s were a very split group.  Because of the draft, the high school graduates in the mid 1960’s either went into college or the military.  Our colleges were beginning to lean left at that point–when the USSR fell, it was revealed that there were Soviet agents on our campuses enlisting people in the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and other organizations.  It was fashionable on college campuses of the 1960’s to hate America.   The graduates that went into the military saw an entirely different world.  Some went to Viet Nam and never really came home (even if they came home physically).  Others got married and struggled in the seventies to keep things together through rising inflation and stagnant wages.  Others discovered drugs and never came home from those experiences. 

Boomers were used to being influencial.  The majority of boomers were idealistic and believed that with love they could create a ‘fairer’ world.  They had to be competitive because there were a lot of them.  Many of them turned very far left.  I believe our current President has the mindset of an early boomer educated in American colleges in the mid-1960’s.  To me, that is not a good thing.

The boomers are not really to blame for anything.  Society accepted our rebellion against its morals and the later boomers carried that rebellion to degrees we never dreamed of.  Human nature seems to always push the envelope–we just steamed it open a little.

Today’s Washington Post has some further clarification on the charges against Gerald Walpin.  The charge that he was disoriented and confused stem from a meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service on May 20.  According to the Washington Times:

“Our witness, a staff member, said the board was hostile and rude. He said the board repeatedly interrupted Mr. Walpin and peppered him with questions on multiple issues. He fully confirmed Mr. Walpin’s account that the board excused Mr. Walpin for 15 minutes and that when Mr. Walpin returned to find his notepapers out of order, the board refused to give him time to get them straight.” 

The article further points out that an inspector general can only be removed for a specific just cause.  Evidently, there is really no just cause for his firing.  It will be interesting to see how far the Obama administration will go to see this man removed from office.  He essentially got in trouble for blowing the whistle on some very powerful friends of Barack Obama. 

According to Commentary Magazine, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, demanding an explanation for the Obama Justice Department’s dismissal of a default judgment against the New Black Panther Party in connection with a case of  voter intimidation on Election Day on November 4, 2008.  This is the link to the YouTube video of what happened, You Tube.

The article points out:

“It should be noted that Congressman  Lamar Smith (R-TX) has already sent a similar letter to the Justice Department demanding an explanation for the dismissal. It should also be noted that if the Justice Department stonewalls, the Commission does have the right to issue subpoenas and to investigate the matter further. Perhaps the Commission will get to the bottom of this issue and determine who in the Justice Department overrode the decisions of career lawyers and why the Justice Department chose to abandon a successful prosecution of the most egregious case of voter intimidation in recent memory.”

The video says it all.  None of the committees in Congress that are supposed to oversee this sort of charge have said a word.  I hope that the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will pursue the case.  I don’t want to have to walk past a group of Black Panthers with clubs to vote in 2010. 

Byron York at the Washington Examiner has posted an update on the firing of Gerald Walpin.  Mr. Walpin was a U. S. Inspector General who was investigating AmeriCorps.  President Obama has ordered Mr. Walpin removed from his job in 30 days.  The article reports:

“The questions relate to a letter Eisen sent to some senators Tuesday night attributing Walpin’s dismissal, in significant part, to Walpin’s behavior at a May 20, 2009 board meeting of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the organization that oversees AmeriCorps.  Eisen wrote that at the meeting, “Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the board to question his capacity to serve.” After the meeting, Eisen wrote, Walpin lost the confidence of the Corporation Board.  The White House conducted a review of the matter, and Walpin was fired.  (For a detailed account of Walpin’s reaction to the White House charges, see here.)”

There seem to be doubts about the validity of those charges.  Iowa Republican Senator Charles Grassley has stated that Norman Eisen, the White House Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform, has refused to answer a number of questions regarding the firing of Mr. Walpin.  Senator Grassley has sent a letter to White House counsel Gregory Craig stating that questions would be submitted in writing to Mr. Eisen and that Senator Grassley expects a written reply to those questions by June 24.    Please follow the link in the opening paragraph to see those questions.

Inspector Generals are supposed to be independent of politics.  They cannot be fired by the President without cause.  It looks to me as if the lesson the Obama administration is trying to teach is “Do not cross this President”.  We have put Chicago politics in the White House.  I truly hope that Mr. Walpin gets a fair hearing on this matter.

Today’s Washington Times has a good background article today on what is going on in Iran.  For more current information on the situation, I recommend Pajamas Media–they have a few very well connected people who post there.

The Washington Times reminds us that Mir Hossein Mousavi is not really a reform candidate–he supported the takeover of the U. S. Embassy in 1979, and he was Iran’s prime minister when Iran revived its nuclear program.  Although he supported the taking of the Embassy and wanted to end U. S. interference in Iran in the 1970’s, he now advocates less confrontation with the West. 

Mr. Mousavi is seen as the proxy candidate for former President Mohammed Khatami and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.  There is evidently a history of bad feeling between Mr. Rafsanjani and the supreme leader of Iran, which explains the supreme leader’s support of Ahmadinejad.  Either Ahmadinejad or Mousavi is seen as being hostile to the United States.

According to the article, many people currently protesting do not support either candidate–they are hoping that the chaos they create will result in the downfall of the mullahs and lead to a pro-Western leader.

I have no idea what is going to happen with this, but there are some things to watch.  The Iranian police are purposely assigned to work in areas away from their homes so that they will shoot protesters if ordered to do so.  If they refuse to shoot, it may be the beginning of freedom for Iran.  It has also been stated that foreign police from Hezbollah (and Venezuela according to some sources) have been called in to keep order because the mullahs do not feel that they can depend on their own police to do what is necessary. 

Power Line has a video of some of the abuse by a policeman.  Note that the policeman is wearing a ski mask.  It is not a pleasant video to watch.  This uprising in being reported on cell phones and the internet–the mullahs have not been able to keep news from getting out–that is a good thing. 

Power Line had a post yesterday about Tim Pawlenty, the Governor of Minnesota.  Minnesota is having the same budget problems that the country (and most Americans) are having–too much going out and too little coming in.  Well, Governor Pawlenty has definitely dealt with the problem.  The Democrats in Minnesota attempted to pass $1 billion in tax increases.  Governor Pawlenty vetoed the increase and his veto was upheld–all Republicans voted to sustain it and two Democrats joined in.  The Democrats then refused to pass a balanced budget (required by law in Minnesota).  Next, according to the article:

“Gov. Tim Pawlenty today announced plans to cut $300 million from aid to local governments, $236 million from health and human services programs, $100 million from higher education and to defer nearly $1.8 billion in payments to K-12 schools as he made good his promise to unilaterally slash spending to balance the state’s budget.

Pawlenty’s plans would eliminate the $2.7 billion shortfall left after the legislative session that ended last month.”

I’m sure there are some people complaining about the cuts, but I am also sure that there are many people cheering them.  As people begin to realize that higher taxes and increased government spending impede economic growth rather than create it, we will need more leaders like Tim Pawlenty.

The Drudge Report has posted a story about an upcoming event at the White House.  This is the link, Drudge Report, but I am not sure how long it will be valid.   On June 24th, ABC News will broadcast its nightly report from the Blue Room of the White House followed by a special program on the President’s healthcare proposals.  According to the article, ABC Senior Vice President Kerry Smith stated that:

“ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience.”

The word that comes to mind is infomercial.  Whether or not you support an overhaul of our heathcare, this is a use of the media that is simply not appropriate.  There will be no other healthcare proposals discussed, nor will the negative aspects of the President’s plan be revealed.  Americans who are still naive enough to believe that ABC is an objective source of news are going to be fed lies as if they were truth.

The Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee, Ken McKay, has written a letter to the head of ABC News criticizing the absence of any Republican input in the program.  This is not the way to pass bi-partisan legislation.

The Hill posted an article yesterday on the Congressional Budget Office report estimating the cost of President Obama’s proposed healthcare plan.  They estimated the cost of a leading healthcare reform proposal at more than $1 trillion, but that figure looked only at a portion of the bill.

The article states:

“The 10-year cost of reform could approach $2 trillion if the projections are made from the date that proposals are fully implemented. While the projected cost for a new system may reach $1.5 trillion for 2010-2019, it could run significantly higher for 2013-2022, as healthcare costs rise steadily each year.”

I’m not sure I would be in a hurry to call it reform if it drastically raises the cost of healthcare for Americans instead of decreasing it.  There are also some question as to how many uninsured people would actually become insured people under the new plan.  Remember, many of the uninsured are young people who choose not to pay insurance premiums, financially well off people who have catastrophic benefits, but not regular health insurance, and illegal aliens, who I believe are entitled to medical care when necessary, but not taxpayer funded health insurance. 

Any healthcare proposals put forth need to be examined carefully.  I believe we have paid a high price for passing a stimulus bill that no one had time to read.  Let’s not do that again!!

The American Thinker has posted an article by Amil Imani & Dr. Arash Irandoost on the continuing unrest in Iran.  According to the article, this is the actual vote:

However, the turnout was massive, a near record high 85 percent of Iran’s 49.2 million eligible voters. Based on the information from Mousavi’s website , a group of Interior Ministry employees have leaked out the following results which seem to be closer to reality than the one released by the establishment:

Total eligible: 49.2 Million

Participated in the election: 75% to 85%
Mir Hussein Mousavi: 45%
Mehdi Karoobi: 33%
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 13%
Mohsen Rezai: 9%

Cancelled votes: 3%

 

I have no way of knowing if these figures are accurate–they came from the person who seems to have lost the election, but the authors of the article feel they are:

 

“It is clear that Mr. Mir Hussein Mousavi won the election by a large margin. Ahmadinejad came out third. But on Friday June 12, 2009, in the Islamic election (selection) something happened. Something beyond what anyone could have ever imagined. Something huge. A daylight coup d’état by the elements of the establishment, particularly, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which the Senate designated as a terrorist organization (with Senator Obama not voting). The clerical leadership in Iran has grown increasingly reliant on the IRGC to help it stave off internal pressure for political and economic reform and external pressure resulting from international concern over Iran’s nuclear program.”

 

The article also mentions that a Spiegel German reporter in Iran has reported and verified that  the regime has brought many Arab speaking Hizbollah factions from Lebanon to attack the Iranian people.  This is seen by the authors of the article as a sign that the police and law enforcement are becoming less willing to do the mullah’s bidding.  That may be a very good sign that the days of the mullahs are numbered–but remember, an animal fights the hardest when it is cornered.

 

Despite the criticism he received for doing it, George Bush stood for democracy.  Now from the American president there is silence.  Real Clear Politics reminded us on November November 24, 2006: 

 

“But even the realists and cynics might concede there has been some benefit, perhaps going back as far as Plymouth Rock, in having one nation standing for the conceit, or even the ideal, that men elsewhere with democratic aspirations could at least count on us for active support. This is the core idea in the Bush Doctrine.”

 

America needs to stand for democracy.  We do not need to intervene militarily–but we need to state strongly that we support honest elections in all parts of the world and we do not support protesters being shot.  I am sure there have been pictures taken of the protesters so that they can be identified and dealt with later.  As a country, America needs to speak forcefully against this. 

National Review Online posted an editorial today on the Iranian elections.  Before we get too upset at rigged voting numbers, lets look at how we got the candidates.  According to the article:

“Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, evidently believed that the electoral maneuver could be carried out as usual, according to his sole and uncontested will. He may even believe that he is popular and respected. So an election with the superficial air of a contest was arranged. A field of 475 possible candidates (no women, naturally) was whittled down to Ahmadinejad and three elderly members of the Islamic establishment. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad prepared to coast to victory.”

Iran is ruled by the Mullahs–not by the President.  They choose the candidates and run the election.  Mir-Hossein Mousavi may have seemed like the moderate candidate, but a true moderate would not have gotten throught the election process and been allowed to run.

It has been thirty years since the shah was overthrown and the Islamic Republic installed.  That is the last time the kind of unrest we are seeing now was present. 

The article concludes:

  “How far repression will go is unforeseeable, but the regime‘s misguided manipulation and recourse to violence is a lasting stain. The supreme leader and his president have little choice except to pretend to strength. President Obama should call them on it, lending the opposition his rhetorical support. So far, he has given the impression that he wants the dictatorship to stabilize itself so he can get back to the work of appeasing it. The more Obama extends that hand of his, the likelier the regime is to try to crush its bones.”

The young people in Iran are believed to be very pro-western.  This will be a growing problem for the mullahs if they do not deal with it quickly and firmly.  I do not expect the current riots and protests to lead to increased freedom in Iran, I expect we will see a crackdown on opposition to the government similar to what we saw in China in 1989.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an op-ed by John Fund on the new Congressional management of General Motors.  According to the article:

“Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Banking Committee, says his successful intervention to keep a General Motors distribution center open in his Massachusetts district isn’t evidence that Congress will have undue influence in running the new 60% government-owned auto company.”

Representative Frank stated that since the closing he prevented was not an auto plant or a dealership, this was not likely to happen anywhere else. 

“He said keeping the distribution center open was environmentally sound because otherwise auto parts would have had to be trucked to New England from a facility in Philadelphia. Mr. Frank also waved off a suggestion that the episode proved that rules are needed to stop lawmakers from jawboning to keep plants or dealerships open.”

So after he kept something open that was supposed to be closed, he doesn’t want rules to stop other lawmakers from doing the same thing.  Hmmm.  

I’m glad the distribution center is staying open–it’s local for me and it means people will keep their jobs, but who is running the show?  Dealerships sell cars and create revenue, why are many successful dealerships being shut down?  What is actually going on here?

Today’s Washington Times covered the recent speech by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  In remarks widely viewed as a response to President Barack Obama’s recent address to the Muslim world, Prime Minister Netanyahu stated that he would support a Palestinian state with conditions.  The article states:

“Mr. Netanyahu went further than any leader of the Likud party in recognizing the need for a Palestinian state, but he placed two conditions: that the United States gives a guarantee that it remain demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”

He also stated that Jerusalem must remain undivided and under Israeli rule, rejecting Palestinian claims to the holy city’s traditionally Arab eastern section as the future capital of Palestine. 

He called for the Palestinians to sit down at the negotiating table without preconditions. Saeb Erekat, a senior official in the Palestinian Authority, said the conditions outlined by Mr. Netanyahu ended prospect for negotiations.

I doubt that a non-military Palestinian state is possible.  The Palestinians have destroyed the infrastructure of the land they have been given, and they have used the money they have been given to rebuild it to pad foreign bank accounts or buy weapons.  Until the Palestinians start acting like peaceful state trying to help its people move forward, I see no reason to give them statehood. 

The Hill posted an article yesterday concerning the redistricting that will take place between the 2010 and the 2012 Congressional elections.  All members of the House of Representatives have to run for reelection every two years, so the districts that are electing them will be the same in 2010.  According to the article:

“Though many districts are in play, a few will be particularly important the cycle before redistricting, including those of freshman Democratic Reps. Bobby Bright (Ala.), Suzanne Kosmas (Fla.), Ed Teague (N.M.), Betsy Markey (Colo.), John Adler (N.J.) and Dina Titus (Nev.). If Republicans are unable to recapture these districts next year, they could be much harder to win back in the future.”

The states control their redistricting, but the national census will determine how many representatives a state will get (based on the population counted in the census).  Remember that ACORN is planning to play a major role in the next census and work closely with the current White House to assure that all people are counted.  That’s political speak for using some sampling methods in certain cities to show more people than actually live there.  I really am beginning to worry about the integrity of the election process in the mid-term and next presidential elections.  The fact that voters were intimidated by Black Panthers in Philadelphia and there was no real consequence to the Black Panters for their actions causes me to wonder what comes next.

Democrat congressional leaders have said that they want to pass a healthcare bill before the August recess.  That deadline is approximately six weeks away.  The debate will definitely heat up during that time, and there will be a lot of things left out of the debate by both sides. 

Two of the best articles on the healthcare plans were posted last week at The Heritage Foundation (a conservative group that generally deals in numbers and statistics) and at Townhall.com by Michael Barone (a political writer for U. S. News & World Report).

Michael Barone points out that the government plan will crowd out private health insurance.  He points out:

“We are told that a government insurance plan reduces the amounts spent on health care by using “comparative effectiveness research” — in other words, by rationing care and limiting options through the use of statistics. Unfortunately, statistics are constantly in flux and do not capture the differing needs of actual patients as well as skillful practitioners can.”

He cites three major problems with government healthcare:

1.  How will it be paid for?

2.  Most Americans are satisfied with their health insurance and don’t see a government plan as necessary or as an improvement.

3.  The group that overwhelmingly voted for President Obama was the 18 percent of voters that are under 30.  They voted for President Obama by a 66 to 32 percent margin.  They are also the segment of the population that is the least concerned with health insurance.

The Heritage Foundation article talks about the consequences of government healthcare.  The article points out that premiums in a grovernment program would be 25-40 percent lower than private insurance premiums, as the public plan would reimburse providers less than private payers would–and often less than the cost of care delivered.  This would eventually drive out private healthcare.  It would also create financial problems for doctors and hospitals.  The article states:

“More specifically, of the estimated 157.4 million Americans who have private employer coverage, up to 107.6 million people could lose their private employer coverage, even if they like it and would prefer to keep it.” 

I strongly suggest reading both articles completely, but here is the closing argument from the Heritage Foundation:

“Discussions surrounding the creation of a new public plan, based on Medicare and intended to compete with private health plans, have not adequately considered the potential consequences for patients and providers.” 

The thing to remember as this debate continues is that Congress will not be affected by whatever legislation they pass.  Congress has its own very good healthcare program that is paid for by the taxpayers.  Even as Congress’ healthcare gets more expensive due to nationalized healthcare, the taxpayers will continue to fund it.  Congress will not be impacted by the change.  If national healthcare is a nightmare for Americans, Congress will have no incentive to change it–they are not covered under it–just as they have no incentive to properly fund Social Security–they opted out of it in the 1960’s (about the same time they started stealing money from it). 

There is an article in Thursday’s Washington Examiner by Byron York concerning the firing of Gerald Walpin, the Americorps Inspector General.   This is a story I had not really heard a lot about.  In his letter to Congress firing Mr. Walpin, President Obama claimed that he no longer had confidence in the Inspector General.   A Power Line post this morning sums up the situation.  The Inspector General does not serve at the pleasure of the President–he is expected to be independent.  The core of the story according to the Washington Examiner is:

“The bottom line is that the AmeriCorps IG accused a prominent Obama supporter of misusing AmeriCorps grant money.  After an investigation, the prominent Obama supporter had to pay back more than $400,000 of that grant money.  And Obama fired the AmeriCorps IG.”

At first, President Obama tried to force Mr. Walpin to resign.  When Mr. Walpin refused, President Obama sent a letter to Congress informing them that he was firing Walpin, effective 30 days from the date of the letters.  The article futher states:

“(Senator Charles) Grassley (of Iowa) fired off a letter to the president on Thursday saying that, “I was troubled to learn that [Wednesday] night your staff reportedly issued an ultimatum to the AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin that he had one hour to resign or be terminated,” Grassley wrote.  “As you know, Inspectors General were created by Congress as a means to combat waste, fraud, and abuse and to be independent watchdogs ensuring that federal agencies were held accountable for their actions.  Inspectors General were designed to have a dual role reporting to both the President and Congress so that they would be free from undue political pressure.  This independence is the hallmark of all Inspectors General and is essential so they may operate independently, without political pressure or interference from agencies attempting to keep their failings from public scrutiny.”

Grassley’s version of events suggests that the White House first tried to muscle Walpin out of his job without having to go through the 30-day process.  It was only when Walpin refused to resign that the White House then notified Congress of the president’s intention to fire Walpin.”

This is an obvious abuse of Presidential power.  I am waiting to see it reported on the news.  It occurs to me that I may wait a long time.

Yesterday’s Investors’ Business Daily posted a commentary on the sale of Chrysler to Fiat.  The Supreme Court last week allowed the sale to proceed.  According to the article:

“Richard Mourdock, Indiana’s state treasurer who has been criticized for contesting the terms of the Chrysler bailout, notes that “no critic has ever challenged us on the points of law.”

Indiana’s pension funds for retired teachers and state police officers were among Chrysler’s secured creditors. It has been settled law that secured creditors, as compensation for lending money at rates lower than the borrowing company’s condition might justify, are first in line to be paid in the event of bankruptcy.

Indiana’s funds and other secured creditors received less per dollar than did an unsecured creditor, the United Auto Workers, which also got 55% ownership of Chrysler. So the government is simultaneously subsidizing Italians and injuring retired Hoosiers.

The Supreme Court has said nothing about “bailout law,” a phrase that currently is an oxymoron. America as Bailout Nation is governed by unconstrained executive discretion.”

This is one of those seemingly minor incidents that will come back to bite us as a country in the future.  The laws of bankruptcy were blatantly violated.  Secured creditor were paid less per dollar than unsecured creditors.  America’s average citizen may not have noticed, but you can bet that Wall Street investors did.  A favored political group was given preference over a non-favored group in a property dispute.  Where is the press?

For the past few days, the news has been obsessed with David Letterman’s bad jokes about Sarah Palin.  There are, however, a few underlying things that should be looked at.  David Letterman’s jokes come from a group of writers.  A number of people see them before they go out over the airwaves.  Didn’t anyone think it was inappropriate to say that the governor of a state looked like a slut?  Didn’t anyone think attacking the child of a political figure was off limits?  But even aside from that, there are other things to be looked at in this.  Sarah Palin came to the defense of her child.  Any mother worth her salt would be expected to do that, but where were her fellow politicians with families who expect their children to be off limits to the press and to tasteless jokes? 

Where was the Republican party to say that the media stepped over a line?  If this remark had been made about Chelsea Clinton, would Bill and Hillary be the only ones responding?  I am a conservative before I am a Republican–I don’t blindly support Republican candidates or the party, nor do I make a point of endlessly criticizing them, but they missed the boat on this one.  Michael Steele needs to be on every channel for two days reminding people how classless David Letterman’s jokes were.  He needs to be standing up for Sarah Palin.  Where was he?