West Bank Birth Certificates

Despite the fact that Congress years ago passed a resolution to recognize an undivided Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (a resolution that has never been carried out), the State Department has a different take on the subject.

According to Huliq News, the children born to American citizens living in Jerusalem, whether in West or East Jerusalem, are not recognized by the US State Department as being born in Israel. 

According to the article:

“However, regarding births in any of the Arab towns or Jewish communities, the rules read “The birthplace for people born in the West Bank or in the No Man’s Lands between the West Bank and Israel is WEST BANK…Those born in 1948 or later may have their city of birth as an alternate entry.”

This situation, protest Jewish Americans living in the area, is illogical. The “West Bank” never existed as a geo-political entity until 1950, when Jordan annexed the area. That annexation was never recognized by the United States. Moreover, the place names used by the British Mandate as well as by the United Nations in its 1947 Partition Resolution, the same decision the US uses to avoid listing Jerusalem as in Israel, were actually “Judea” and “Samaria. A baby born to American citizens in Shiloh, for example, should be registered as “Shiloh, Samaria”.”

Does this mean that children born in Texas are Mexican?  Israel is the only country in the world that when she was attacked and defeated her attackers was not allowed to keep the land she gained. 

To quote Walid Shoebat, “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”

This is the stupidity of the worldwide war that is happening against Israel.

Drill, Baby, Drill

Today’s St. Petersburg Times posted an article by Dave Mica on the benefits offshore drilling would bring to the American economy.

Mr. Mica points out:

“According to an ICF International study, commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute, development of America’s vast domestic oil and natural gas resources that had been kept off-limits by Congress for decades could generate $1.7 trillion in revenue for federal, state and local government. According to the same study, domestic development could also create thousands of well-paying jobs. Given the benefits, why does the administration continue to delay new and increased development?”

While the American Congress prohibits American companies from offshore drilling, other countries (less careful about the environment) are drilling in these waters.  It is economic foolishness to keep any restrictions on offshore drilling for American companies in place. 

There are a lot of complex issues involved in the energy debate.  What would be the impact of American oil independence?  There is a move right now to make the American dollar no longer the currency used to buy oil.  If America were oil independent, would this matter?  Our dollars would be going to American companies–balancing our trade and putting Americans to work.  I also wonder how powerful OPEC would be if America were energy independent. 

There is also another issue here that may be below the radar.  In the 1970’s an agreement was made with Saudi Arabia that we would support their government in exchange for their support of the dollar being used to trade oil.  That explains a lot of the schizophrenic policies we have had toward Saudi Arabia over the years.  Offshore drilling would make that a moot point and might result in saner policies in the Middle East.

Why is our government unwilling to reach for energy independence?

Delay In Afghanistan Means American Soldiers Will Die

Yes, I realize that statement is inflammatory, but it is also true.  General McChrystal asked for reinforcements in August; it is criminal to leave troops there without providing the requested reinforcements.

Investor’s Business Daily (now Investors.com) posted an editorial yesterday on the need to follow the recommendations of General McChrystal.  The article points out that although the election was far from perfect, the election is not the sole reason we are there.  I would also like to point out that in Iraq, an entire section of the population boycotted the first election.  We continued our mission to bring order to the country, and those people voted in the next election.  To deny our troops the reinforcements they need because of an imperfect election is reckless and puts our troops at risk.  It also emboldens the terrorists we are trying to defeat.

Where was all this concern about honest elections in Iran and Venezuela?

The article points out:

“The delay makes winning more difficult, and it’s a betrayal of U.S. troops who are fighting and dying in a war they can’t suspend just to let Afghanistan get its electoral act together. The troops need backup, and to them more support is not a political carrot.”

If the request for more troops is not granted in a timely manner, we can expect to see more American and civilian deaths in Afghanistan while the President dithers.  We could also see the terrorism against Pakistan increase and the nuclear arsenal that Parkistan possesses fall into terrorist hands.  That would be a horrible nightmare for the free world.

Musings On Global Warming

I am a football fan.  I live about ten minutes from where the New England Patriots play.  Having spent my teenage years in New Jersey, I am a Jets fan, but I still like the Patriots.  I watched Sunday’s game from the comfort of my living room as I watched the snow fall outside–in October!!  I felt sorry for Tennessee–I think they just wanted to go home.

The current consensus of opinion is that since 1998, the earth is cooling.  There are a number of theories as to why that is happening, my favorite website on global warming is Watts Up With That.  If you want to follow the science of climate change, that is a good place to do it. 

This is not an article about global warming; it is an article about what is being planned to combat global warming regardless of whether or not it is actually happening.

Human Events posted an article yesterday about the Congressional law requiring all of us to use compact fluorescent bulb — CFLs.  The mandatory phase-out of incandescent bulbs starts in 2012.  Let’s look at the CFL’s for a moment.  CFLs contain mercury, a hazardous waste, so the EPA wants you to discard them only according to its guidelines. 

In his article at Human Events Ernest Istook points out:

“My complaints are widely-held but poorly-publicized. Buried in the back pages are details about the new bulbs: poorer quality lighting; overstated claims of long life; and that they’re mostly (80%) made in China.”

In the name of preserving the planet, we are shipping jobs overseas to a country that does not have the anti-pollution standards that we have.  That makes a lot of sense.

Watts Up With That has the video of a speech given by Lord Monckton October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute.  They also have the powerpoint presentation he used.  For me, the bottom line on this speech is his comment on the United Nations Climate Change Treaty:

 “I have read that treaty.  And what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created.  The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.  The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to Third World countries, in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, “a climate debt,” because we have been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate.  We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.  And the third purpose of this new entity, this government is “enforcement.””

To be totally honest, I don’t know what to think of this.  I know that the majority of Americans do not want to be part of a treaty that takes away our sovereignty.  I hope the President and Congress read this treaty carefully before taking any action on it.

What Happens When Naive People Negotiate With Bullies

Power Line posted an article yesterday detailing the negotiations currently going on in Vienna concerning Iran’s nuclear program. 

The government of Iran is telling the Iranians that the Obama administration has consented to Iranian enrichment of uranium.  Power Line earlier reported on the Iranian mullahs’ official Friday night sermon (which essentially stated that Iran had won the right to have nuclear weapons).

The article posted yesterday reports:

“Iran repudiated the deal. Now, Iran wants a foreign country, France or someone else, to ship it the nuclear material it needs for civilian purposes, but it wants to keep its own enriched uranium at home:

The move came as Iranian officials held talks with representatives of America, France and Russia in Vienna. An earlier meeting in Geneva on Oct 1 had yielded an agreement which some saw as a possible breakthrough.

Iran has amassed at least 1.4 tons of low-enriched uranium inside its underground plant in Natanz. If this was further enriched to weapons-grade level – a lengthy process – it would be enough for one nuclear weapon.

But Iran agreed to export 75 per cent of this stockpile to Russia and then France, where it would have been converted into fuel rods for use in a civilian research reactor in Tehran. This would have been a significant step towards containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Before talks, however, Iranian officials signalled they would renege.”

Hopefully it will occur to someone in the Obama Administration that the more time we spend in negotiations with Iran, the more time they have to perfect their nuclear weapons and delivery systems.  The time for negotiations is over; the time for action is here.  It is a shame that neither the UN or the US has the political will to impose strong sanctions–in not doing anything both the UN and the US have made the world less safe.  It will probably be left to the Israelis to solve the problem, and the world will condemn them for their solution (while many countries silently breathe a sigh of relief!).

Progress Report On The Healthcare Legislation

There are two sources for this article, Politico, which is reporting on the healthcare bill that has come out of the Finance Committee, and The Hill, which is reporting on the deal offered to doctors in return for their support of the bill.

Politico reports:

The bill that has come out of the Finance Committee is 1,502 pages long.  Politico has a link to the entire bill, but also posts highlights at the link above.  Some of the highlights:

Some of the Senators are concerned that the tax on high-end health insurance plans will also be levied on plans that are not so high end.  The 40 percent tax on high-end insurance plans will apply to plans that cost an individual more than $8,000 and a family more than $21,000 would be taxes.  That’s a plan costing a family $1,750 a month.  That is not high end.  In Massachusetts, that’s probably low for a good plan.

This is not the final form of the bill.  Senate Majority Leader Reid and Sens. Max Baucus and Chris Dodd along with senior White House aides are merging the Finance and Health Committee legislation into one bill that will be considered on the floor of the Senate.  This will go on behind closed doors, and we probably won’t have a chance to study the bill that comes out of that merge.  So far, there is no transparency in this process.

The Hill reports:

Senator Harry Reid met with doctors’ groups last week and said the Senate would consider legislation separate from the healthcare bill to halt scheduled Medicare cuts in doctor payments over the next 10 years.  Senator Reid stated that in return he expected doctors to support his healthcare reform bill.  Senator Reid also asked doctors not to push for tort reform in the legislation.  Trial lawyers are a major part of the Democrat party donors, and those lawyers oppose tort reform.

I am also convinced that the purpose of the $250 payment to senior citizens who are not getting a cost of living increase in their Social Security payments is to distract them from what the Obama Administration is about to do to their Medicare coverage.

Healthcare reform without tort reform and without portability of personal healthcare insurance across state lines is not healthcare reform–it is only a government takeover of the healthcare insurance industry.

Sometimes I Really Appreciate Senator Joseph Lieberman

The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room is reporting today that Senator Joseph Lieberman (the Independent from Connecticut) will hold hearings on Thursday to explore the role of ‘czars’ in the executive branch. 

According to the article:

“Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will convene the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee on Thursday to explore “The Past, Present, and Future of Policy Czars.””

Why is it that an independent Senator has the intestinal fortitude to do this and the Republicans in Congress do not? 

Some of the witnesses at the hearing will be former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, George Mason University Professor James Piffner, Attorney Lee A. Casey, and Harold Relyea, a former researcher at the Congressional Research Service.

Previous Presidents have also appointed ‘czars’.  The issue is what the specific responsibilities of the czars are and whether or not they are involved in determining policy.  They are not confirmed by the Senate and there is some real question as to whether or not they are constitutional.

The Mistake Of Delay

The Blog at the Weekly Standard posted an article by William Kristol yesterday about the delay in sending more troops to Afghanistan.  As the mother-in-law of a Marine headed there shortly, I am very interested in this debate.

According to the article:

“”It would be reckless to make a decision on U.S. troop level if, in fact, you haven’t done a thorough analysis of whether, in fact, there’s an Afghan partner ready to fill that space that the U.S. troops would create and become a true partner in governing the Afghan country.” — White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, on CNN today (Sunday)”

William Kristol has four arguments against this statement:

1.  Many of the people in the current White House were against sending more troops even before the election in Afghanistan took place.  Rahm Emanuel and Joe Biden were both on the record as opposing more troops. 

2.  President Obama announced his Afghanistan strategy on March 27.  The Obama team had months to move to insure that the election would be carried out honestly.  There was no doubt that without political and diplomatic moves, the election would be corrupt.  Then, on August 17, President Obama restated his commitment to win in Afghanistan, when it was known that the election would be corrupt.  Now the administration is acting as if a corrupt election was a surprise.

3.  If the White House complained about General McChrystal publicly stating his opinions about what was needed to win the war, what is the justification for Rahm Emanuel going on CNN and voicing his opinion?

4.  The policy of delay is stupid and reckless.  We are leaving 68,000 undersupplied troops in Afghanistan to do a job that requires 108,000.  When you consider the lessons learned (we hope) in Iraq, this is foolish.  The political history in that part of the world shows that the people in Afghanistan will side with the group they feel will protect them and that will stand with them against the weaker group.  There is no morality involved; it is matter of survival. 

There were a number of things that turned the tide is Iraq.  One was the troop surge which allowed us to bring peace to troubled areas and stabilize the situation.  The other thing that made a difference in Iraq was the unbelievable cruelty practiced by Al Qaeda in Iraq against the Iraqis. 

Afghanistan has lived under the Taliban.  They know what it is like.  The women in that country know what it is like.  The dithering at the White House may cost us our allies in the region and it will definitely cost American lives.  President Obama needs to live up to his campaign pledges and do what we need to do to win.

When The Evidence And The Conclusion Disagree

Friday’s Washington Examiner posted an article on the difficulties of claiming ‘global warming’ when looking at the recent weather statistics and the statistics for the past ten years.  The article points out:

“…what has happened is global temperatures have dropped every year since 1998, recent peer-reviewed research has uncovered the decisive influence of hot and cold cycles in the oceans on land temperatures, and growing numbers of scientists with unquestioned credentials are stepping forward to question the conventional wisdom.”

The bottom line here is that we don’t know all we think we know!  The raw data on which the landmark 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change based its conclusion has been destroyed.  The University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has discarded the data that the 1996 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used to conclude that the earth was warming rapidly due to carbon emissions.  The data that was used to predict the end of the world in five years due to global warming has disappeared.

The article points out:

“The Competitive Enterprise Institute has formally requested that the Environmental Protection Agency, which helps fund CRU, “reopen the record” and allow CEI and others to submit newly uncovered information regarding the East Anglia data destruction. The conservative think tank also wants to submit information about flaws in other data EPA is using as it devises stringent new anti-global warming regulations. Congress should also investigate the dumping of data partially paid for by U.S. taxpayers and other suspicious global warming anomalies, such as the temperature readings taken from “ghost weather stations” like the one at Maine’s Ripogenus Dam. It was officially closed in 1995 but allegedly is still transmitting climate data 14 years later. Such questionable data sources must be eliminated if credible policy decisions are ever to be reached.”

Does it make sense to cripple the United States economy for an idea based on questionable data that has been destroyed?  As this discussion continues, I would like to point out that it snowed yesterday in Massachusetts.  That is the earliest snowfall we have had in thirty years.

The Example Of Texas

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article Friday about the success of tort reform in Texas.  Texas instituted tort reform about six years ago to solve its medical malpractice lawsuit overabundance. 

There were three basic areas of change in the tort laws:

1.  In order to sue a medical care provider, an expert report was required within120 days of filing the suit stating that the doctor being sued committed a medical error that caused injuries.  This meant that medical evidence had to accompany the suit–cutting down on the number of frivolous lawsuits. 

2.  A cap was placed on noneconomic damages.  In Texas, that cap only applies to those damages that are not capable of an objective value, 

According to the article:

“The combination of prohibiting doctors and health care providers from being exposed to unlimited and arbitrary awards, and requiring an actual medical report at the outset, have cut the number of medical malpractice lawsuits in Texas in half.”

3.  The law was changed so that the actual lawsuit amount paid had to equal the actual amount paid by the claimant in expenses.

What are the consequences of these three simple changes in the law?  According to the article:

“These common-sense reforms have led to a massive increase in the accessibility of health care in Texas, huge growth in the capital infrastructure of hospitals and clinics, hundreds of millions of dollars more each year in charity care and Texas’ adding more than 16,000 new doctors in just six years.

“And in reducing the actual number of suits to those in which claims are meritorious — a recent Harvard study concluded that up to 85% of all lawsuits brought against medical providers were frivolous — we have created a more equitable system of justice.”

The lesson of Texas tort reform is very simple–common sense can solve a problem without having to spend billions of dollars.  I wish Congress were paying attention to that lesson. 

Games Continue As Deficits Grow

This is not a partisan article.  Both Democrats and Republicans have been fast and loose with taxpayer money.  That fact is about to catch up with us as the rest of the world debates moving away from the dollar as the global currency.  So what does Congress do–lie to us about increaseing spending!

According to The Hill in its Blog Briefing Room, Senate Democrats are planning to reform Medicare doctor payments separately of their larger healthcare bill.  Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) stated yesterday that this was a gimmick to make the cost of the healthcare bill appear lower than it actually is. 

According to the article:

“The so-called “doc fix” — which lawmakers typically pass every year — combats staggering, annual decreases in Medicare reimbursement payments to physicians and hospitals. Democrats this year want to pass a robust, $250-billion, 10-year overhaul of the formula used to determine those payments, but Republicans are growing increasingly concerned by how lawmakers plan to pay for it — an argument Hatch advanced again on Friday.”

The “doc fix” is needed on a regular basis to insure that doctors do not stop taking Medicare patients.  The “doc fix” is one Medicare expense that will continue to increase even if healthcare reform passes.  The real problem with the healthcare bill is that it makes serious cuts in other areas of Medicare in order to insure young people who may or may not be able to afford health insurance.  You really can’t insure the entire population of the country without either increasing the total cost of insurance or making cuts somewhere.  The current healthcare proposal has chosen to make cuts at the expense of senior citizens.

It’s Always Embarrassing To Get Caught With Your Hand In The Cookie Jar

According to yesterday’s Wall Street Journal, the House Oversight Committee was scheduled to meet Thursday afternoon to mark up several minor pieces of legislation.  According to the article:

“California Republican Darrell Issa notified committee Chairman Edolphus Towns that Mr. Issa would call for a vote to subpoena Countrywide documents from Bank of America, which bought the failed subprime lender last year.”

When Mr. Issa and the GOP members of the committee sat waiting for the meeting to begin, Democrats huddled in a back room without explanation. Thirty-five minutes later, the committee announced that the meeting had been postponed indefinitely.  The article further reminds us:

“Recall that, under the “Friends of Angelo” program, named for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad received sweetheart deals on home mortgages. Mr. Issa wants to uncover the full story on Countrywide’s effort to influence Washington policy makers.”

Does anyone want to make any guesses as to when this committee will meet again and if they will find a way to avoid the subpoenas.

Bi-Partisanship In The Finance Committee

Yesterday The Hill (Blog Briefing Room) reported that Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) stated that the healthcare bill that came out of the Finance Committee was not bi-partisan.  He stated that early negotiations excluded key committee members for the sake of a proposal that ultimately “wasn’t bipartisan,”

The article quotes Senator Rockefeller:

“That’s what happened on the stimulus bill … we got one vote on the stimulus bill and it was always referred to as [the] bipartisan stimulus bill,” Rockefeller added. “It wasn’t, it wasn’t — it was us plus Olympia … it’s game-playing.”

I appreciate his honesty–one Republican vote does not make a bill bi-partisan! 

Changes In Turkey

The information in this article comes from two sources, the New York Post and Power Line. Turkey has been leaning toward radical Islam for a while.  In 2003, the country refused to allow American troops access to their country in order to invade Iraq from the north.  Last week, they refused to let Israel participate in the NATO exercise “Anatolian Eagle”, which is a regularly scheduled military exercise along the Turkish border.  Because Israel was not allowed to participate, American withdrew and the exercise was cancelled.  This is not really a change of direction, but a leap forward in a direction that does not mean good things for western countries.

The article in the New York Post points out what happened after the NATO exercise was cancelled:

“A day later, Turkish and Syrian officials disclosed that their armies had just concluded their own joint military exercise. The same day, the two countries went even further, signing a strategic cooperation pact.”

Part of this is related to the fact that Turkey has been kept out of the European Union.  You really can’t blame the country for looking for an alternative group that would accept it.  Turkish society is becoming more economically comfortable and there is a desire to get along with its neighbors.  In drawing closer to its Arab and Muslim neighbors, Turkey has aired a new drama series on TV which depicts Israeli soldiers as cold-blooded killers who enjoy shooting at defenseless Palestinian children.  This sort of television is one of many reasons that the Jews and the Arabs have a difficult time making peace with each other!

Power Line points out:

“As for the Obama administration, since entering office in January it has abandoned US support for democracy activists throughout the world, in favor of a policy of pure appeasement of US adversaries at the expense of US allies. In keeping with this policy, President Barack Obama paid a preening visit to Ankara where he effectively endorsed the Islamization of Turkish foreign policy that has moved the NATO member into the arms of Teheran’s mullahs. Taken together, the actions of the Bush and Obama White Houses have demoralized Westernized Turks, who now believe that their country is doomed to descend into the depths of Islamist extremism.”

Unfortunately, since the Obama Administration took office, the number of people in the world willing to take a stand for democratic government has decreased drastically.  I hope that by the end of President Obama’s term America will have some credibility left both as an ally and a supporter of democracy. 

  

Rifqa Bary To Be Sent Back To Ohio

Wednesday’s Orlanda Sentinel is reporting that a Florida judge has ruled that Rifqa Bary will be sent back to Ohio and placed with a foster family so that the question of returning her to her parents can be settled in Ohio.  Orange County Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson has, however, refused to move the case to Ohio until the matter of the girl’s immigration status is settled.  The judge has asked for Rifqa Bary’s immigration documents twice, and so far they have not been produced.  It is interesting that according to a previous article at Right Wing Granny the Washington Times reported that Refqa’s father had sold his business and made plans to return to Sri Lanka as soon as he found out that she had become a Christian.

Jeff Jacoby at the Boston Globe posted an article on August 10, 2008, about honor killings and the fact that they were happening in America.  There were a number of cases he cited where fathers or brothers had killed young girls because the girls had refused arranged marriages, dated someone outside the faith, or done something to ‘dishonor the family.’  Unfortunately, I believe that if Rifqa Bary is sent back to her family, that will be her fate.  Either the judge does not understand the Muslim tradition of honor killings for renouncing Islam or he is choosing to ignore it.  Hopefully if this case makes it to Ohio, the judge will be more familiar with the underside of the Muslim culture.

Who Approved A Pay Czar?

Today’s Power Line posted an article on the Pay Czar’s decision that Ken Lewis, Chairman of the Board of Bank of America, would work for free in 2009.  Not only will he not be paid for the rest of the year, he has been asked to return the $1 million he has already received this year.  Mr. Lewis agreed to the decision, stating that “he felt it was not in the best interest of Bank of America for him to get involved in a dispute with the paymaster.”

Aside from the obvious question of the government determining anyone’s salary, there are some other interesting things to look at here. 

According to the article:

“… Lewis took on the federal government by testifying that Fed chief Ben Bernanke and Henry Paulson, a Democrat who was then Secretary of the Treasury, bullied him into committing what was, in effect, an egregious violation of the securities laws. Bank of America was due to close on its purchase of Merrill Lynch, and Lewis knew that Merrill’s value was plummeting. Lewis testified under oath that Paulson and Bernanke threatened to fire the entire management and board of Bank of America, including Lewis, if Lewis backed out of the Merrill deal or communicated to the bank’s shareholders what a bad deal the purchase had become.”

Essentially the government forced him to violate his duty to his shareholders in order to advance the government’s objectives.

The Obama Administration is very willing to attack anyone who gets in the way of their policies or disagrees with them.  This is another example of that willingness.  If Mr. Lewis had kept quiet about the pressure the Obama Administration put on him, he would probably still be collecting a salary.  Is this the way the Constitution is written? 

Politically Incorrect Wealth And Investments

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article speaking out against the National Football League’s treatment of Rush Limbaugh as a minority investor in the St. Louis Rams.  The article was too polite to mention that the Rams have an 0 and 5 record this year, and any change anywhere would probably be an improvement.

Evidently, part of the problem here is the upcoming contract talks between the player representatives and the league owners regarding a collective bargaining agreement.  The fact that Rush Limbaugh would be drawn into that is a bit ridiculous.   Actually, the whole thing would be laughable if it were not an indication of what is happening to free speech in this country.  Evidently politically incorrect speech is not acceptable and can prevent you from pursuing dreams that otherwise would be attainable.

The Wall Street Journal article points out:

“What happened here, and is happening elsewhere in American life, is that Mr. Limbaugh’s outspoken political conservatism is being deemed sufficient reason to ostracize him from polite society. By contrast, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who fires off his own brand of high-velocity, left-wing political commentary but lacks Mr. Limbaugh’s sense of humor, appears weekly as co-host of NBC’s “Football Night in America.” We haven’t heard anyone on the right say Mr. Olbermann’s nightly ad-hominem rants should disqualify him from hanging around the NFL. Al Franken made it all the way to the U.S. Senate on a river of political vitriol.”

We all need to remember that when one person loses his right to speak freely without fear of consequences, we all lose that right!

Why Is The President Attacking Fox News?

Today’s Washington Times posted an article about the White House war against Fox News.  According to the article:

“Last weekend, the Obama administration declared war. “We’re going to treat [Fox News] the way we would treat an opponent,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director. She claimed, “We don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.” The administration has begun using a government blog to regularly attack what it calls “Fox lies.””

There is an old quote attributed to Mark Twain that says, “Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel.”  I think the White House would be wise to take this advice.  The article points out that President Nixon went after the Washington Post.  We know how that went.

The article cites a few examples of the Obama Administration trying to control opposition:

“With Democrats controlling both Congress and the presidency, the Obama administration is trying to squash dissent. The administration is not content with attacking critical press. It is boldly proceeding with plans for the Federal Communications Commission to meddle in conservative talk radio. It threatens insurance companies with not being able to participate in federal programs if those companies attempt mildly to warn customers about how new health care legislation will affect them.”

This sort of activity is not a good thing for a democracy. 

The Fight Over Who Should Pay For “Free” Healthcare

Townhall.com posted an article yesterday on the fight over who will actually pay for the ‘free’ healthcare the government is promising all of us.  Congress is estimating the cost of healthcare at approximately $900 billion over ten years.  Labor unions, special interest groups, and insurance companies are all lobbying hard to make sure they are not the ones who have to pay for the new program. 

The unions do not want their ‘Cadillac’ healthcare plans taxed to pay for the program.  The insurance companies do not want the government running their businesses and interfering with their business practices.  The elderly are protesting the proposed cuts to the Medicare Advantage program. 

It seems as if even people who have been convinced that nationalized healthcare is a good idea are not interested in paying for it.  I myself would be willing to support healthcare reform as soon as Congress tries it on themselves for a year or two.

Does Congress Know We Are Fighting A War?

Today’s Washington Times posted an article on a study showing how some of the money appropriated for guns and ammunition for our troops is actually being spent.  There are $2.6 billion being put into pet projects.  The money was largely taken from accounts that pay for fuel, ammunition and training for U.S. troops, including those fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

According to the article, some of the projects include:

“$25 million for a new World War II museum at the University of New Orleans and $20 million to launch an educational institute named after the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat.”  

The study was conducted by Winslow Wheeler, a former Senate staffer who worked on defense funding and oversight for both Republicans and Democrats. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information, an independent research organization.

The article reports:

“Mr. Wheeler said that senators took most of the cash for the projects from the “operations and maintenance” or O&M accounts.

“These are the accounts that pay for troop training, repairs, spares and supplies for vehicles, weapons, ships and planes, food and fuel,” Mr. Wheeler said.”

There is already a privately-funded World War II museum in New Orleans.  It is a fantastic musuem–I have been there.  There is no need to put a publicly funded museum of the same time period in the same place.  There is not a problem with an educational institute named after Senator Kennedy, but why does it have to be publicly funded at the expense of our soldiers?

We are fighting a war in Afghanistan.  If Congress continues to take money away from that war effort, our chances of actually winning it will decrease substantially. 

The Price Of Speaking Honestly

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story tonight that is truly sad.  Rush Limbaugh has withdrawn as part of a group of investors that was trying to buy to NFL football team the St. Louis Rams.  It really doesn’t matter to me who owns the team.  What saddens me is the false accusations against him that have caused the controversy which resulted in his being forced to withdraw from the group buying the team.

Free speech is a basic right of the U. S. Constitution.  There is no right written into the Constitution that says we have the freedom not to be offended.  If you are looking for an excuse to be offended by someone else’s free speech, you will probably never have to look very far. 

I think it is truly sad that a man who has worked as hard to be a success as Rush Limbaugh has can be prevented from doing something that he would genuinely enjoy doing by people who do not share his opinions making false accusations against him.   Rush Limbaugh is not a racist.  Also, anyone who has ever listened to Rush Limbaugh knows that he thoroughly enjoys football and is quite knowledgeable about the sport.  It is truly a shame that Rush Limbaugh will be denied one of his dreams by people who simply cannot stand to see someone who disagrees with them succeed.

The Presidential Attack On Fox News

On Monday, the website of Fox News posted an article about the recent attacks on Fox News by the Obama White House.  While I can understand the President’s frustration with a news service that does not follow the crowd in supporting him, attacking a reputable news outlet is tacky.  The President has shunned Fox News recently–the week that he appeared on five Sunday Shows, he did not appear on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace. 

This kind of pettiness is beneath a President.  If George Bush had ostracized every news outlet that negatively reported on him, we would never have seen him on the news.  President Obama has every right to appear on whatever programs he chooses (or not), but this White House has taken it farther than that. 

According to the article:

“”What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we
view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,”
said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They
take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition
research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend
they’re a news network the way CNN is.””

The quote that comes to my mind when I hear this is the World War II quote, “You know you are getting near the target when you start taking flak.”  Fox News has been increasing its ratings during all of the Obama Administration.  Fox News has both news shows and opinion shows, and they are good about differentiating between the two.  To paraphrase another President, if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Common Sense In Ecology And National Security

Tuesday’s Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about offshore drilling and its effect on the environment.  As you read the article, it becomes very obvious that things are not always what they appear to be.

The article cites a Florida oceanographer working for the Interior Department who studied the impact of relatively new offshore oil drilling in the Arctic off of Alaska. 

According to the article:

“”We found early in the process that impacts to the environment from offshore drilling were minimal,” said John Trefry, a marine and environmental systems professor at the Florida Institute of Technology. “In fact, the entire offshore area was near-pristine.””

Obviously this was not what he thought he would find.  There are two things to be considered in the discussion of offshore drilling.  The first is that when an oil rig is put into the ocean, it attracts marine life.  The article reports that:

“Paul Sammarco, a marine biologist at the Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium, surveyed abandoned drilling rigs and discovered that they had “spawned lush marine habitats that are home to a profusion of rare corals and 10,000 to 30,000 fish each.””

The other thing to consider is the precautions oil companies take in order to avoid spills and leakage.  The article further states:

“According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, between 1985 and 2001, spills from offshore platforms and pipelines accounted for only 2% of the oil released in U.S. waters.”

The majority of oil in the marine environment is the result of oil seeps.  The article mentions that:

“In Southern California, they (oil seeps) contribute 98% of the crude in the offshore zone. Those same natural seeps are responsible for 60% of the oil found in the North American marine environment.”

At a time when the price of oil is again climbing and most of the oil in the world is owned by countries not friendly to America, it would be wise to explore offshore drilling before the price climbs higher and the oil-producing countries become even less friendly.  Enviromental studies show that offshore drilling is not the problem it was once thought to be.

Be Careful When You Make An Agreement–The Other Person May Not Really Agree!

Reuters is reporting today:

“…Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday
against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the
Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was “premature”.”

Why, then, did we break our agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic on a missile defense shield?  Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had visited Russia for two days of talks, and Prime Minister Putin did not even meet with her–Putin left for a trip to the Russian Far East and China before her arrival in Moscow.

Commenting on the removal of the missile shield from Poland and the Czech Republic, Putin said that he hoped the United States would not renege on its promise to scrap plans for an anti-missile system in central Europe.  Maybe I’m missing something, but that sounds as if the missile defense system that was promised in the future is going to be a problem.

Generally speaking, the rule for dealing with dictators and tyrants is that they only understand strength.  Any concessions made are seen as weakness they can exploit.  It seems to me that the current administration in America does not realize this and is making the same kind of mistake that Neville Chamberlain made in negotiating with Hitler.

The Expense Of Defending Yourself

According to today’s Washington Times, Israel is seriously considering placing travel restrictions on its senior officials and military officers.  These leaders will not be allowed to travel to Europe because the Israel government fears they will be subject to arrest because of a disputed U.N. report that accuses the Jewish state of targeting civilians in its Gaza war earlier this year. 

The article reminds us:

“Israel launched the offensive to stop the militant Palestinian group Hamas from firing rockets on Israeli cities from Gaza, which Hamas controls. While the war is viewed in Israel as a tactical success, its large civilian death toll – estimated at 926 by Palestinian rights groups and at least 295 by Israel – has created significant diplomatic fallout.”

One of the things to remember in any war–particularly in the Middle East–is that there is a public relations war as well as a military war.  The Arabs are particularly known to place weapons in civilian areas in order to increase civilian casualties and make their enemy look bad.  One of the problems we have continually had in Iraq is the placing of weapons in mosques and the use of mosques as attack platforms.  The theory is that we will not attack a mosque and if we do, the enemy can use the attack in publicity against us.  That is the situtation in Gaza.

Does anyone remember why Israel went into Gaza?  According to the Israel Ministry Of Foreign Affairs:

“Rocket and mortar shell fire from the Gaza Strip continues as the Palestinian terrorist organizations’ preferred form of attack. In 2007, 896 hits were identified in Israeli territory, compared with 946 in 2006, the year with the largest number.  The trend continues in 2008.  In May 2007 alone Palestinians launched some 300 Kassam rockets from Gaza at Sderot and the western Negev.  Hamas openly claimed responsibility for the attack.”

Would America tolerate that sort of rocket attacks on a daily basis from a neighboring country?  What would our response be?  Would any country tolerate that sort of daily attack?  I think not.