The two sources for this story were an article in Saturday’s Washington Examiner and Saturday’s Washington Post. 

On Friday, seven former CIA directors asked President Obama to end Attorney General Eric Holder’s investigation into possible detainee abuse after September 11, 2001.  Michael Barone points out in the Washington Examiner that the seven former CIA directors include all living former CIA directors except the nonagenarian Stansfield Turner and former President George H. W. Bush. Turner may be in no position to sign such a letter, while Bush, like living former presidents of both parties except for Jimmy Carter, can be presumed to be adhering to a policy of not criticizing the current incumbent.  This information is not found in the Washington Post article.

The Washington Post did point out:

“CIA officials have noted that the allegations of detainee mistreatment had been evaluated by an aggressive team of federal prosecutors who declined to file criminal charges, after which some CIA employees were subjected to internal discipline.

“”The CIA is cooperating with the official reviews now in progress, in part to see that they move as expeditiously as possible,” agency spokesman Paul Gimigliano said.”

This investigation into these cases concluded years ago.  To open up this again is to cause serious problems both with the morale of the CIA and with our allies overseas that we cooperate with on covert operations.  This is another example of playing domestic politics in a way that negatively impacts our relationships with our allies in the world. 

Power Line posted an article yesterday about the media coverage of the two young people who filmed the videos showing ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) employees willingly helping the two young people attempt to break the law.  The Washington Post ran articles on Thursday and Friday about the two young people.  They implied that James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles were not acting independently and suggest that the production of the videos may have been racially motivated.  They also make a point of mentioning that Hannah Giles was the eldest daughter of a Christian minister.  One Power Line reader points out that none of us have any idea what Woodward or Bernstein’s parents did for a living, nor were they attacked for their investigative reporting.

A google search of ACORN will provide a list of the indictments against them for voter fraud and other charges in various states.  We need to make sure Congress follows through on its pledge to withhold government funding from them.  They may have started out as an organization that only wanted to help the poor, but they have become an illegal enterprise.

Today’s Washington Post has an article this morning stating:

“Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal says emphatically: “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near-term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.””

At the same time, Townhall.com posted an article yesterday stating:

“Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress last week he expected McChrystal’s request for additional forces and other resources “in the very near future.”

“Other military officials had said the request would go to McChrystal’s boss, Gen. David Petraeus, and up the chain of command in a matter of weeks. The White House discounted that timeline, but has remained vague about how long it would take to receive the report and act on it.”

I am one of what I suspect are many people who wish George Bush were still Commander-in-Chief.  The delay on this decision is costing American soldiers their lives.  If President Obama doesn’t want to fight the war, he should pull our troops out.  To increase the troops gradually, rather than follow the recommendations of the military people who are in the country is not wise. 

This is a quote from the Obama08 website: 

“As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban. As we step up our commitment, our European friends must do the same, and without the burdensome restrictions that have hampered NATO’s efforts. We must also put more of an Afghan face on security by improving the training and equipping of the Afghan Army and Police, and including Afghan soldiers in U.S. and NATO operations.

“We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military — it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers. And we must seek better performance from the Afghan government, and support that performance through tough anti-corruption safeguards on aid, and increased international support to develop the rule of law across the country.

“Above all, I will send a clear message: we will not repeat the mistake of the past, when we turned our back on Afghanistan following Soviet withdrawal. As 9/11 showed us, the security of Afghanistan and America is shared. And today, that security is most threatened by the al Qaeda and Taliban sanctuary in the tribal regions of northwest Pakistan.”

 
President Obama was right in his statement about turning our backs on Afghanistan.  We can’t afford to do that again.  In 2007 the movie THE KITE RUNNER depicted what happened after the Taliban took over Afghanistan after the Americans walked away after defeating the Soviets following the 1979 Soviet invasion of the country.  We can’t let that happen again. If the war in Afghanistan fails now, we run the risk of the Taliban freely setting up headquarters there.  This is not good for us or the rest of the world.  There is a war on terror, and we need to fight it.  To do so timidly is to go back to a pre-911 way of thinking.  We are actually fighting Iran in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but it would be very unwise to attack Iran–instead we would be wise to support the people in that country who are fighting for their freedom from the religious dictatorship currently running that country.  So far President Obama has been unwilling to do that.

The Hill is reporting today that Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union with John King,” stated that General Stanley McChrystal should not have the final say on U.S. strategy going forward in Afghanistan. 

According to the article:

“He’s just in the chain of command, and there’s higher-ups,” Levin
said. “This is not a situation like General Petraeus in Iraq, when the
president basically said, whatever the commander in Iraq wants, he’s
going to get.”

He might have mentioned that General Petraeus was successful in Iraq and George Bush was glad he listened to him.  The last war American politicians ran was Viet Nam and that didn’t turn out too well.

We have a totally inexperienced President and a tried and tested General.  I think I would rather follow the advice of the General.

The Washington Times reported yesterday on a plan by groups supporting the President’s healthcare proposals to hold a series of tightly scripted events on Tuesday.  The groups have called for an “escalation” of efforts against “enemies” of reform.  The groups involved include Health Care for America Now (HCAN), which is backed by a coalition of
labor unions and liberal groups including ACORN and MoveOn.org.  The group organized the protests to target insurance companies and drafted the plan, which
describes the demonstrations as part of its “insurance enemies
project.”

According to the article:

“The HCAN field plan dictates that each protest will include a minimum
of 30 participants, target only health care insurers CIGNA, WellPoint
and United Health Care and showcase what it calls “victims,” or people
who have either lost insurance, can’t afford it or were denied coverage
because of pre-existing medical conditions.

“”We built a campaign to win health care reform and that is
exactly what we are working on,” said HCAN national spokeswoman Jacki
Schechner, who authenticated the documents. But she asserted: “There is
nothing top-down about this.””

Healthcare legislation is important and will affect every American.  It deserves an honest debate.  To orchestrate this sort of theatrics to attack honest dissent does voters a disservice and stifles honest debate.  To characterize people who question or oppose the current legislation as ‘enemies’ is simply unfair.  Hopefully voters will ask their own questions and not be swayed by these productions.

The Tulsa World is reporting on a lawsuit in Oklahoma that may have national implications.  A teenager was refused a job at Abercrombie & Fitch because she wore a hijab, a religiously mandated head scarf.  A district manager allegedly told her that the hijab, which Elauf wears in observance of her religious beliefs, did not fit the store’s image.  The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR)-Oklahoma helped her file a complaint with the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) claiming religious discrimination.

This case is not a good thing.  The EEOC office in Oklahoma is falling all over itself proclaiming that they are going to end religious discrimination in hiring and that businesses cannot hire people based on a particular marketing strategy or a particular look.  Ok.  Let’s think about where this goes.  Is it a right of a business to hire people whose appearance is in keeping with their image?  I would be happy if Abercrombie & Fitch never sold another piece of clothing to American teenagers–I think they have coarsened the way our teenagers look–but I would not challenge their freedom to sell the clothes they sell.  Is it their right to hire people who have the ‘look’ that they sell?  Would you frequent a gym where the receptionist was obviously obese?  If you ran a vegetarian restaurant, would you hire Ted Nugent to do your television advertisements?  Would you hire a luxury car saleman who insisted on wearing unironed jeans to work?  Would you hire a priest as a dealer in a blackjack casino (I doubt he would take the job!)?  But you see where this leads.  There has to be a balance between the right of the employer to hire people who will fit in with his organization and the right of someone to be fairly considered for employment. 

Depending on how this case is settled and how it is appealed, it could negatively impact anyone trying to run a successful business.

This is a total afterthought, but it makes me question the actual origins of this case.  Why would a young girl modest enough and devout enough to wear a headscarf want to work in a place that sold clothes that trended toward immodesty?  Is there more to this lawsuit than meets the eye?

The spin on cancelling the missile defense shields promised to Poland and the Czech Republic is that we are giving them something better.  However, an article in today’s Washington Times reports that the Poles and the Czechs really don’t see it that way.  The front page headline on the Polish tabloid said, “Betrayal! The U.S. sold us to Russia and stabbed us in the back.”  It is telling that Vladimir Putin praised the move as “correct and brave.”   I am not so convinced that Russia is our friend as to be happy when Putin praises the decisions of our government.

The Obama administration has either overlooked or chosen to ignore the fact the Poles and the Czechs regarded the missile shield as something that would also help them deal with Russian aggression.  They are feeling as if we have sold them out to the Russians.

According to the article:

“Neighboring Lithuania, a small Baltic nation that broke away from the Soviet Union in 1990 and is now a NATO member, also expressed regret over Mr. Obama’s decision.

National Defense Minister Rasa Jukneviciene said that the shield would have increased security for Lithuania and she hoped missile defense would not be excluded from future talks on NATO security.

“This NATO region cannot be an exception and its defense is not less important compared with others,” she said.”

In breaking the promises made to Poland and the Czech Republic, we are telling the world that America cannot be depended on to keep her word.  Countries in eastern Europe and the Middle East will begin looking for allies they can depend on and refusing our requests for help in fighting the war on terror.  This decision may have serious consequences within the NATO alliance. 

Yesterday The Hill reported that forty Senators have asked Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to end the TARP program by the end of 2009.  According to the government released Monthly TARP Report, detailing the activities of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008 which created TARP, the authority to make investments under the EESA expires on December 31, 2009.  However, the Secretary of the Treasury may extend the authority through October 3, 2010, upon satisfying certain conditions.

The forty Senators, led by John Thune, a South Dakota Republican, have asked Secretary Geithner not to extend the program.  According to the article:

“”The Troubled Asset Relief Program was originally designed and proposed to Congress as a measure to help failing banks get toxic assets off their books while they regained financial stability,” said Thune. “In reality, TARP has been used to take ownership interests in banks, insurance companies, and automakers.”

I think it’s a little late to debate how the TARP was used, but I think Senator Thune is right in asking that it not be extended.  The article describes the letter sent by the forty Senators as bi-partisan.  I think that is a bit of a stretch since only one Democrat signed the letter.

Based on the chart listed on the government’s TARP report, it appears that as of the end of August, only $450 billion of the TARP money had been spent.  If President Obama really wanted to help the economy, he would cut the spending there and give the rest of the money back to the taxpayers. 

All of us would love to invent a perpetual motion machine that would transport us from one place to another without using any fuel or emitting anything.  Well, the Max Baucus healthcare proposal wants to do that with money. 

According to the Wall Street Journal today, one of the ways Senator Baucus intends to fund the new healthcare legislation is the impose a $40 billion “fee” on medical devices and diagnostic equipment.  This would amount to a 10% to 30% income tax surcharge on the people who invent and market these products, depending on the corporation.  Obviously, the cost increase to the corporations would eventually be passed on to the healthcare consumer–raising costs.  This of course would raise the cost of the program for the government, and any actual revenue from the tax would only cover the increased cost.  All I can think of is a cat chasing its tail–ultimately the cat gives up because it can’t quite accomplish its goal.  In this case, the result will be either the cutback of healthcare or more taxes to pay for it.

The article notes that the the device lobby made a mistake by trying to negotiate with the President on terms of the healthcare bill rather than just campaigning against it from the start.  The conclusion:

“And now it may be too late. As we’ve argued, liberal Democrats think that merely allowing an industry to continue to exist is a concession, and they’re already taking the pharma and hospital concessions and running them higher. In the case of devices, patients will be left with higher costs for fewer life-saving technologies.”

The healthcare bill now proposed is a bad bill.  It does not address the basic needs of healthcare–instead it just creates more bureaucracy and more excuses to raise taxes on people and corporations.  Unless tort reform, healthcare insurance across state lines, and the subject on insuring illegal aliens are addressed, healthcare reform will simply be a way to grow government. 

According to Real Clear Markets yesterday, as Congress defunds ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) in one bill, they are strenghtening the framework that allowed the group to grow in another part of Congress. 

The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) of 1977 allowed ACORN to get into the mortgage business.  Groups such as ACORN would protest banks, forcing them to make risky loans in low-income areas of the community.  As a result of being protested, the banks would contracts these groups to act as mortgage counselors in low-income areas in return for dropping their protests against the banks.  The article explains:

“In one particularly lucrative deal, 14 major banks eager to put CRA protests behind them in 1993 signed an agreement to have Acorn administer a $55 million, 11-city lending program. It was precisely such agreements that helped turn Acorn from a network of small local groups into a national player. And Acorn hasn’t been alone. A U.S. senate subcommittee once estimated that CRA-related deals between banks and community groups have pumped nearly $10 billion into the nonprofit sector.”

Follow the money.  Unfortunately Congress does not seem at all interested in stopping this cozy little arrangement.  Yesterday, the House Committee on Financial Services under Chairman Barney Frank held hearings on legislation supported by the Obama administration that would bring insurance companies and credit unions under the umbrella of CRA, placing new lending demands on these groups and opening them up to protests and pressure tactics by organizations like Acorn.   Congressmen supporting the new legislation feel that giving more power to the CRA will avoid another housing bubble.

The article concludes:

“The effort to save and extend CRA in the face of its role in the mortgage market’s massive meltdown is testament to the unique power of this legislation to nourish an entire industry of nonprofits which, like Acorn, have been reliable supporters of politicians like Barney Frank, Maxine Waters and a former community organizer and associate of Acorn by the name of Barack Obama.”

Please follow the link (http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/09/16/acorns_a_creature_of_the_cra_97409.html) and read the entire article.  It is an amazing testimony of how Congress can be totally blind to what is actually happening in our country. 

The Boston Herald is reporting today that the Massachusetts House of Representatives has voted 97-58 in favor of allowing Governor Deval Patrick appoint someone to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat until a special election is held in January.  The bill still has to be voted on in the Senate.  This legislative change was suggested by Senator Kennedy.

The article reports:

“House Speaker Robert DeLeo, a Democrat, said the change is needed to ensure Massachusetts continues to be represented by two senators until voters can choose a replacement during a Jan. 19 special election.”

The law was changed in 2004 (also at the urging of Senator Kennedy) because the state had a Republican governor and the Democrats who run the state did not want a Republican Governor making the choice.

This showed up in my email.  It is not original, but it is definitely food for thought.

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a Teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD’s, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent “Austrian language,” would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potato as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans, would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Can’t think of anything? Don’t worry.

He’s done all this in 5 months — so you’ll have three years and seven months to come up with an answer.

America has betrayed two friends today–the Czech Republic and Poland.  To make things worse, it was done on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.  President Bush had promised to set up missile defense shields in both countries to counter the threat of the Iranian nuclear program and to provide a hedge against the expansionist plans of Vladimir Putin.  President Obama has told the Czeck Republic and Poland that they will not be getting those missile defense systems.  One of the ways to lose your status as one of the world’s most powerful nations is to break promises made to your allies. 

The UK Times has the story from the European perspective.  According to the article:

“Instead, after a comprehensive review, he had decided to accept the advice of both the Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, and of the Chiefs of Staff opt for a “smarter, stronger and swifter” system involving both sea-based and land-based mobile interceptors.

“Mr Obama said that latest intelligence suggested that threat of long-range missile attacks from Iran had receded, but the threat of short- or medium-range attacks was a real one.”

At what time did the threat of long-range missile attacks from Iran recede?  This decision not to deploy the missile systems was met with dismay be the Czech Republic and Poland.  It also has made some of the other young democracies bordering Russia very nervous.  These countries have helped us in Afghanistan, and to turn our backs on their challenges is not a way to stay friends. 

It’s hard to write this piece and keep the rating at “G”, but I will try.  Yesterday’s  Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about the current scandal surrounding ACORN.  There are currently three or four videos up at YouTube showing ACORN employees giving advice on how to acquire housing loans of federal money to people claiming to want to set up brothels trafficking in underage girls.  Sounds like something you’d welcome in your neighborhood, right? 

The article at Investor’s Business Daily is wonderfully written.  It really needs to be read in its entirety, but here are a few points.  After the videos surfaced, the Census Bureau immediately cut its ties to ACORN.  ACORN will no longer be helping with the 2010 Census.  Nebraska Republican Senator Mike Johanns offered an amendment in the Senate to strip ACORN of funding in the Transportation/Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill.  The measure passed 83-to-7.

After the New York video came out, the Brooklyn district attorney’s office promptly launched a criminal probe into Acorn.  According to the article:

“The tax-exempt New York Acorn Housing Co. reported receiving $226,000 in grants through last June, including $70,000 from federal housing lender Fannie Mae and its New York counterpart, Sonyma. By one estimate, national Acorn has received $53 million in federal funds since 1994.”

If you remember, ACORN shares no small responsibility in the mortgage meltdown.  They sent members to annual meetings of banks to pressure them to make risky loans using the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) as justification for their actions. 

It’s time to stop funding ACORN with taxpayer dollars, and it is also time to begin an investigation of their activities. 

While healthcare has taken center stage, according to The Hill yesterday, card check is quietly being moved to the point where it will be voted on this year.  The unions heavily supported Barack Obama during his run for the presidency.  It was believed that his administration would make the workplace more friendly for unions and increase union membership.  In an article published on January 28 of this year, The New York Times noted that union membership has increased from 12.1 percent of workers in 2007 to 12.4 percent of workers in 2008.  Union membership reached its peak in 1983; it was at 20.1 percent.  It is also interesting to note that 36.8 percent of government employees belong to unions, while only 7.6 percent of private industry employees are unionized.

According to the article in The Hill, Arlen Spector, who now supports card check has stated:

“Specter cited three principles pushed by unions for labor law reform that he agrees with: no delays in union certification, tough penalties for labor law violations and binding arbitration for management and workers to reach union contracts more quickly.”

The article further states:

“”What matters is not whether the AFL-CIO has cut a new backroom deal on the bill; it is whether it can be sold to Senate moderates who are worried about saving jobs, especially their own,” said Steven Law, chief legal officer and general counsel at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which opposes the bill.”

Card check is not generally a popular idea with the American public.  Americans can be an independent bunch, and they don’t like being forced into a union any more than they like being denied the right to join one.  We tend to insist on making our own choices.

This is one of a few bills Congress is thinking about that would do serious harm to the American economy.  The passage of this bill will eventually be determined by how many Congressman believe they can support it and still be elected in the next election cycle.

According to Yahoo News Congressman Joe Wilson has been formally rebuked by the House of Representatives for his “You lie” comment during the President’s speech on healthcare.  Politico.com points out that it is much easier for the Democrats to talk about Joe Wilson than to actually talk about the issues involved in the healthcare debate.

Mr. Wilson needed to exercise more self control during the President’s speech, but it is interesting to note that since that outburst, there have been attempts to fix the loophole in the healthcare bill that allows illegal immigrants to be covered.  Either the President was misinformed, or he was lying. 

There is another side of this.  During his eight years as President, George Bush was routinely treated rudely by Congress.  There was booing at his State of the Union addresses, and he was called “Hitler” and other things routinely.  If I thought that the censure of Joe Wilson would mean that the next Republican President would be treated with decorum by the Congress, I would support it.  But I don’t.  I also think serial apologies are dumb.  Congressman Wilson apologized to the President and that apology was accepted.  At that point Nancy Pelosi stated that the incident was over.  Evidently someone convinced her that there was political gain in keeping the issue alive.  I’m not sure most Americans agree with that idea.

According to Breitbart.com, the Senate voted late Monday to deny federal funds to ACORN (Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now) after videos began to surface of ACORN employees instructing people on how to break the law.  There are now four videos of ACORN employees in different cities explaining to people how to break the law to get money from the government.

Before we get all excited about the vote–it’s a free vote for any Senator.  There is no House of Representatives bill that denies funds to ACORN.  In order for legislation to be enacted, it has to pass in the House and in the Senate.  It then goes to committee and gets rewritten and edited into its final stage.  The bill that comes out of committee has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and signed by the President before it becomes law.  The chances of this vote by the Senate ever becoming law are very slim.

There is another reason why the denial of funds to ACORN will never happen.  The news organizations that have attempted to investigate ACORN have found it to be a maze of small organizations that are structured in a way that makes it very difficult to locate exactly who is behind them.   All ACORN needs to do is change its name and continue to do the things it is doing.

Today’s Washington Times is reporting that House Democrat leaders plan to offer a resolution of disapproval this week if Congressman Joe Wilson does not apologize formally to Congress for his outburst at the President’s speech on healthcare.  Just as a side note, it’s interesting that according to MSNBC on Friday:

“Today, for the first time as far as we know, the administration is backing a provision that would require proof of citizenship before someone could enroll in a plan selected on the exchange.”

Up until now, there was no plan to verify citizenship; in fact, the idea was voted down in the House.  Congressman Wilson was telling the truth; he was telling it in a fashion that was not appropriate, but he was telling the truth.  By demanding another apology (after the President accepted the first one), the Democrats are trying to draw attention away from the truth.  This is politics and is not necessary at this time.  The healthcare bill is major legislation; it needs to be discussed and analyzed by grown-ups–this move by the Democrats in the House does not help the process.

Bloomberg.com is reporting that President Obama has imposed a tariff on tires imported from China.  The United Steelworkers union had asked for the tariff, claiming that the increasing number of tires imported from China were costing US jobs.  The amount of tires imported into America from China has tripled between 2004 and 2008.

China is not happy about the tariff, and has indicated that they may place some tariffs on American goods to retaliate.  According to the article:

“Chinese industries complain that they’re being hurt by “unfair” U.S. trade practices, the nation’s Ministry of Commerce said on its Web site yesterday. The Beijing-based ministry is probing complaints about U.S. subsidies for auto and chicken products, a spokesman said today. The agency is also probing the alleged dumping of the chicken products, he said.

“The U.S. decision on tires violated rules of the WTO and is a breach of the commitments made by the U.S. at the Group of 20 summits, the ministry said Sept. 12. The move will harm both countries’ interests and produce a chain reaction of trade protectionism, slowing world economic recovery, it added.”

The G-20 summit meets in Pittsburgh next week, so President Obama will see Chinese President Hu Jintao there. 

Tariffs historically have not generally been a positive thing.  The Smoot-Hawley Tariff of the 1930’s started a trade war.  The US Department of State writes on its website that world trade declined after the tariff was enacted. 

There is a lot of room for change in our trade policies with China.  We have had some serious problems with pet food, baby food, and children’s toys.  It is also difficult to compete in the world market with a country who severely underpays its labor pool (and probably uses children and prisoners to manufacture some goods).  I’m just not sure a tariff on tires is going to help. 

Yesterday’s UK Telegraph posted a story saying that the Taliban has announced a surrender in the Swat Valley in Pakistan.  According to the article:

“Its announcement, made on one of its pirate radio stations, came as its charismatic leader Maulana Fazlullah was reported to be surrounded by Pakistani troops, and there were claims that he had in fact already been arrested.

“Their collapse in Swat, if confirmed, will deal a serious blow to the Taliban’s Pakistan leadership which has been in disarray since its leader Baitullah Mehsud was killed in an American drone attack in north Waziristan, close to the Afghan border, last month.”

On the surface there is some really good news here.  Two of their leaders have been removed from leadership positions in the past month or so.  That is good news.  But we need to consider the Muslim concept of “Hudna.”  According to The Israel Project‘s Middle East Glossary:

“Hudna- Arabic word often translated as “cease-fire.- Historically used as a tactic aimed at allowing the party declaring the hudna to regroup while tricking an enemy into lowering its guard. When the hudna expires, the party that declared it is stronger and the enemy weaker. The term comes from the story of the Muslim conquest of Mecca. Instead of a rapid victory, Muhammad made a ten-year treaty with the Kuraysh tribe. In 628 AD, after only two years of the ten-year treaty, Muhammad and his forces concluded that the Kuraysh were too weak to resist. The Muslims broke the treaty and took over all of Mecca without opposition.”

I would like to think that this is a geniune surrender, but as Ronald Reagan used to say, “Trust, but verify.”  I think that approach is totally necessary here.

According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, President Obama plans to have the U.S. Department of Education move from its current 20% share of the student-loan origination market to 80% on July 1, 2010, when private lenders will be barred from making government-guaranteed loans.  Starting next summer, the taxpayers will be spending roughly $100 billion per year in student loans. 

The article points out:

“The system broke down after Congress in 2007 legislated a return so low that no private lenders could make money holding these assets. To keep the money flowing to student borrowers, the government began buying the loans from private originators last year. But this larger federal role was intended to be temporary, with an expiration date next summer. The news from Washington now is that rather than scaling back federal involvement, the pols want the U.S. Department of Education to be the exclusive banker to America’s college students.”

The system broke down after Congress ‘made it better.’   The idea was for the government to temporarily solve the problem and then have the private sector take over.  Obviously that didn’t work.  As the healthcare debate continues, we need to look at how well Congress has managed our taxpayer funds in other areas.  This is a prime example of why I want the government to keep away from my healthcare!   Anytime the government gets involved in a program, they take it over and it costs the taxpayers a whole lot more money than what was promised. 

The UK Daily Mail is reporting that there were up to two million protesters in Washington yesterday.  The American papers have listed the crowd as simply ‘tens of thousands.’  I have no idea what the actual number was, but the pictures I have seen show a very large crowd.  I had the feeling in reading the article that the real protest was against the government ignoring the wishes of the people.  The protesters were protesting the amount of spending, healthcare reform, and the idea that they were not being heard on important issues.  It will be interesting to see if Congress and the President begin listening.

There are a number of videos of the rallys held in Washington, D. C., today posted at Lucianne.com.  Follow the link to see them.  The turnout was larger than expected, and most of the media has avoided saying how many people were actually there.  Even if you couldn’t make it to Washington, you need to remember the actions of the current Congress when it comes time to vote next year!

According to Reuters.com, Roberto Micheletti said on Saturday the United States has revoked his visa in an attempt to apply pressure on Honduras to violate its Constitution and reinstate President Manuel Zelaya.

President Manuel Zelaya was removed from office on June 28 of this year.  It was not a coup–the military and legislature were enforcing a clause in the Honduras Constitution putting term limits on the president.  President Manuel Zelaya was ousted for his unconstitutional attempt at a referendum to be President after he was constitutionally required to step down from office.  The courts and the legislature had told him that the referendum he wanted to hold on serving another term was unconstitutional.  He decided to hold the referendum anyway, getting the ballots from Hugo Chavez.  The law in Honduras states that as soon as the President states an intention to violate his term limit, he is to be removed from office.  That is what happened.  Honduras has a written Constitution that seeks to avoid the concept of “President for Life” which has been a problem in some of the countries in the region.

According to the article:

“The State Department said last week that it could not, for now, regard as legitimate Honduran elections scheduled for November because of Zelaya’s overthrow.

“Marcia Villa, a Honduran lawmaker and ally of Micheletti, said several top members of Micheletti’s government, Honduran Supreme Court justices and a group of Honduran businessmen had also lost their U.S. visas.

“Some Latin American leaders have suggested Washington apply more pressure, but some U.S. Republican lawmakers believe it has already done too much for Zelaya, an ally of Venezuela’s socialist and anti-U.S. president, Hugo Chavez.”

The last sentence says it all, why are we on the side of Hugo Chavez?

According to the Washington Times, tens of thousands of Americans marched on Washington, D. C. today to protest government spending.   The Washington Post also ran a story on the march, calling it an anti-government protest.

The articles in the Washington Post and the Washington Times listed some of the protest signs:

“Cash for Clunkers! Trade in your congressman!”

“Go Green Recycle Congress”

“King George Didn’t Listen Either!”

“How Is That Hopey Changey Thing Workin’ Out For Ya?”

Protest is an important part of democracy.  In American, people can protest without fear of government retaliation.  I applaud these people for making the trip to Washington to voice their concern.  It is the responsibility of all Americans to pay attention to what the government is doing and to speak out in support or opposition to whatever is going on at the moment.