Red State posted an article today about the impact of the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The article states:

“The Obama Administration has filed some 27,000 pages of documents in Federal court which disclose the process by which it decided to forge ahead with a deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, in spite of expert advice, public opinion and a Federal judge’s ruling.”

This needs to be looked at in context, but first let’s look at the impact.  The Administration wants to extend the drilling moratorium until November 30.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the moratorium will cost the area 23,000 jobs.  Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) invited Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, to testify before the Senate Small Business Committee hearings.  Dr. Romer has not appeared and in a conversation with Senator Landrieu stated that the Administration did not currently have economic impact data on the moratorium, but would be initiating a review.

The article points out that the oil rigs, which actually drill the wells, are the economic engine of the region.  To shut these down is to impact all the support industries that supply manpower, parts, transportation to the rigs, and the infrastructure that supports the workers.  The moratorium will have a serious negative economic impact on the entire region.

There is one more part of this picture that needs to be remembered.   On June 18th of this year, a website called Infowars referenced a Harvard study on the impact of President Obama’s energy policies.

The article states:

“President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

“That’s a Harvard University study’s estimate of the per-gallon price of the president’s global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.”

If the goal is $7 a gallon gas, there might be a few things to think about.  Considering that the cost of gasoline for Congress is paid for by the taxpayer, does Congress have any reason to want to keep gas prices low?  Since the cost of Presidential travel is paid for by the taxpayer, does the President have any incentive to keep prices low?  What will be the impact on the economy and on the average American of $7 a gallon gas?

I really do support the idea of keeping pollution as low as possible.  Clean air is a good thing.  However, American car manufacturers have worked to provide Americans with relatively clean cars.  The move to electric cars will not actually make things any cleaner–it may cut emissions, but how clean is the source of electricity?  We need practical people in our government to formulate cohesive energy policy–people who understand both economics and the environment and are willing to balance the two.  Until we have balance betweem the economy and the environment, we will not have prosperity.

Today’s Boston Herald is reporting that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick wants to hire Parsons Brinckerhoff – an architect of the Hub highway debacle – to help build the MBTA’s Green Line extension.  Governor Patrick has been highly critical of Republican candidate for governor, Charles D. Baker, for his role in the Big Dig fiasco. 

According to the article:

“Like the Big Dig boondoggle, the MBTA project costs have skyrocketed – ballooning from $560 million in 2007 to $954 million – and will miss a legally mandated 2014 deadline.”

The Big Dig was completed in December of 2007.  The project was originally estimated to have a $2.8 billion cost.  By the end of 2006, over $14.6 billion had been spent on the Big Dig.  With a cost overrun like that, why would anyone even consider hiring the same company for a major state construction project again ?

To hire the same company and expect a different result is insanity.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the repeal of Section 9006 of Obamacare.  Section 9006 is the section of the law that requires businesses to issue a 1099 form for every purchase of a gift or service of more than $600.  Each transaction will require a 1099 form. 

Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns has introduced an amendment to repeal Section 9006. 

According to the article:

“Johanns report that one of his small-business constituents estimates the provision will add $23,000 to his firm’s tax compliance costs.  Every dollar that goes to preparing more paperwork for the IRS is one less dollar available for investments in new jobs.  Considering the Congressional Budget Office’s prediction Friday that unemployment is going to remain above 9 percent for months to come, Section 9006 could not be more ill-timed.” 

It is unreasonable to expect business to expand when they know they will be faced with the sort of increased paperwork and accounting procedures that Section 9006 represents.  The healthcare bill was over 2,000 pages long.  Unfortunately, I suspect there are many other provisions that would need to be repealed in order for the economy to recover from its present recession.  Businesses thrive (and hire people) when government intervention lessens and businesses have the freedom to grow without requiring new paperwork and accounting procedures every day.  It’s time for the government be less intrusive and let growth occur.

Friday’s New York Daily News reported that many of New York’s construction workers are saying that they will not work on a mosque if it is built on Ground Zero. 

According to the article:

“”It’s a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground,” said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuilt the World Trade Center site.”

The idea of refusing to work on the mosque is growing.  One construction worker posted the “Hard Hat Pledge” on his blog which is for construction workers to sign saying they will not work on the mosque. 

Meanwhile, NBC New York reports that there will be a protest opposing the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero today.

The article at NBC reported:

“Gov. David Paterson has offered to help find developers of the mosque secure another location — even on state land — if they agree to move a little farther from the Ground Zero site.”

So far that offer has been turned down.

When you look at the whole picture of this controversy, you wonder why New York City issued the permit for the mosque in the first place.  If this were truly about freedom of religion, why would it be so important to the Muslims to build the mosque at Ground Zero?  The other concept to keep in mind is the one of reciprocity.  Let’s look at the way Muslims around the world treat people of other religions.  In countries where Muslims are in control of the government, there is no freedom of religion.  In Saudi Arabia, you can be sent to jail for having a Bible.  In Turkey, which actually has a relatively moderate Muslim government, Christian churches keep a very low profile for their own protection.  As we saw recently in Afghanistan, medical missionaries were murdered because the Taliban thought they might be sharing their Christianity.  The concepts of ‘honor killing’ and sentencing someone to death for converting to another religion from Islam is also a bit severe. 

Ground Zero is sacred ground.  For that reason I believe it is inappropriate to build a mosque there.  I have no problem with building a mosque anywhere else in New York City if the zoning laws permit.  If the people backing the mosque project continue to attempt to move forward with building the mosque, I think they are simply going to stir up more opposition to the project.  I simply do not see this mosque being built without major political upheaval in New York and across the country.

Michelle Malkin posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the ‘National Ocean Council’, a 27-member panel created by President Obama in late July. 

The article states:

“The panel will have the power to implement “coastal and marine spatial plans” and to ensure that all executive agencies, departments and offices abide by their determinations.  The panel has also been granted authority to establish regional advisory committees that overlap with existing regional and local authorities governing marine and coastal planning.”

This is not the way to manage oceans.  Even Chuck Schumer objected.  The article states:

“Even New York Sen. Charles Schumer slammed the administration’s junk science-based fishing limits at a meeting this week between NOAA’s Lubchenco and Long Island recreational fisherman.  Draconian regulations, he said, according to the New York Post, “put the industry on death’s door.””

Please follow the link above for further details on who is on the panel.  Also keep in mind that the legislative branch of our government never got to vote on this measure.  This really is no way to run a government.

Will global warming policies make sweaters more expensive?  “What?” you innocently ask.   On Thursday, Bloomberg,com posted an article about New Zealand sheep farmers giving up sheep farming due to the government carbon credits program.  The government carbon trading program, which began in 2008, pays the farmers more to plant trees than to grow sheep for wool and mutton. 

The article reports:

“The nation’s carbon-trading project was expanded in July to require energy producers to pay for their emissions. By 2015, the system will include agriculture, forcing farmers to pay for emissions their cows and sheep make through belching.”

The article further points out:

“Even the government says the program will have little impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand ranks 51st in greenhouse gas emissions with 0.2 percent of the global total, according to the United Nations.”

It needs to be remembered that when the government subsidizes an activity, there will be more of it; when an activity is taxed, there will be less of it.  This government program could have major implications for the mutton and wool supply in coming years.  As we move to combat global warming (which may or may or not be man-made), we need to remember that the law of unintended consequences is a powerful thing.

Yahoo News posted a Reuters article today about Iran beginning to fuel its nuclear reactor.  Russia is providing the fuel for Bushehr, a nuclear facility that Iran claims will be used to provide electric power to its people.  Russia built the reactor at Bushehr and is committed to fueling it and to taking away the spent fuel rods.

According to the article:

“Iran, which says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, said it needed to enrich to that level as a deal with major world power and the IAEA to supply special fuel for a medical reactor in Tehran had fallen apart.

“Reacting to the Bushehr opening, British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said: “We have always respected Iran’s right to develop an exclusively civil nuclear power program.

“The problem is Iran’s continued refusal to satisfy the IAEA and international community that its work on uranium enrichment and heavy water projects are exclusively peaceful,” he said.

“Israel, widely assumed to be the only Middle East country to have nuclear weapons, has said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence, raising concerns Israel could attack Iran’s nuclear sites.”

Iran has always claimed that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, but its rhetoric against Israel has always been anything but peaceful.  The fueling of this reactor will probably result in an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at some point in the near future.  The questions remains whether the strike will be done with or without the consent of the United States.

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace website posted an article today about the upcoming peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.  The article points out that Palestinian President Abbas is refusing to have face-to-face talks with Israel unless the talks are based on the idea of Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders.  The first thing to remember here is that if the pre-1967 borders did not bring peace in 1967, why should we assume that they will bring peace now?

The article brings out one very important point:

“That “green line” running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line. The armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors).”

The article shows the evolution of the idea of making the 1967 borders permanent.   It points out:

“You also hear politicians and diplomats claim that Israel must withdraw to the pre-1967 borders as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

“Anti-Israel forces changed the meaning of 242 by adding one simple article to the resolution “the.” They claim that 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “the” territories taken during the Six Day War. The resolution actually says that ‘Israel should withdraw from territories’ taken during the war (no article). Adding the article changes the meaning from withdrawing from some territories to all territories.”

The thing to remember here is that the United Nations has never been a friend of Israel.  In recent years the Arab bloc at the UN has become more powerful.  They have worked to put nations with repressive dictators as rulers on the human rights committee and welcomed leaders who were known terrorists.

Peace between Israel and Palestine will not come until some basic changes are made.  We need to examine the school books of the children in Palestinian schools to see what they are being taught.  Does the message encourage peace or hatred?  We need to look at the children’s television programming that is being broadcast in Palestine.  What does it promote?  You can do this research on your own with a good ‘google’ search.  Until we stop teaching hatred to children, peace will not come to this region.

Please follow this link at You Tube to see a beautiful video.  We need to remember those who fight for our freedom and sacrifice so many things for us.

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an Associated Press article today about the last combat troops that are leaving Iraq.  Their combat mission is complete.  There will still be 50,000 American troops in Iraq to be called on if needed and Special Forces to help Iraqis find terrorists.  I am proud of President George Bush for his willingness to complete the mission in the face of the constant criticism of Democrats in Congress (and occasionally some Republicans).  I am proud of the troops that completed the mission and their families for the sacrifices they made.  I am concerned, however, that this is a very small number of troops we are leaving in Iraq.

One of the goals of Iran is to destabilize Iraq.  I fear that because of the small number of troops remaining in Iraq, the Iranians will see an opportunity to create havoc. 

Thank you to all the American (and other) soldiers who secured freedom for Iraq.  The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.  I hope the people of Iraq will be a stabilizing force for democracy in the Middle East and will be able to enjoy freedom for a long time to come.

Keep America Safe has posted a video on its website of families of people who were killed on September 11, 2001, speaking out against the mosque at Ground Zero.  It’s about two minutes long and well worth watching.  Please follow the link and watch the video.

CNS News reported yesterday that James Miller, the Pentagon’s leading authority on nuclear arms, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “Even large-scale Russian cheating on a new nuclear arms treaty would not hurt U.S. security because U.S. nuclear strengths would more than offset any Russian violations, the Obama administration has concluded.”

Senator John McCain asked him why, if Russian cheating wouldn’t matter, had the Administration bothered to negotiate the treaty.  I agree with Senator McCain (that does not happen often).

The article points out:

“The ability of U.S. missile-bearing submarines and bombers to survive any Russian first strike, and to deliver a devastating counterstrike, would be “unaffected by even large-scale cheating” by the Russians, Miller said. That fact will discourage Russia from trying to secretly exceed the pact’s limits on warheads, he said.

“What’s more, in a crisis the U.S. would be able to add extra nuclear warheads to missiles aboard submarines and bombers – a capability the Russians apparently do not have, Miller said.”

Don’t count on it.  I really don’t understand why we want this treaty.  We can conclude from past experience that Russia’s idea of how to comply with a treaty might be different from ours.  We can also observe that Russia right now is not working toward peace.  Russia has fomented trouble in the now independent countries that were formerly part of the USSR.  They have promised missile defense systems to Iran (not yet delivered), and they are openly helping Iran with its nuclear program.  This does not sound like a quest for peace.  So why are they willing to sign an arms reduction treaty?  What’s in it for them?

I long for the days of Ronald Reagan–“Trust, but verify!”

Yesterday the Fall River Herald News reported on a visit to Fall River by Republican candidate for the Third Congressional District, Marty Lamb.  In the past week of so, a number of small business owners have come forward to support Mr. Lamb in his bid for the Republican nomination. 

Speaking on the steps of the Government Center Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Lamb spoke about his campaign platform.  The article states:

“”It’s about the economy and creating jobs,” Lamb said. “That’s what everybody I’m talking to really cares about. Especially in the cities in the 3rd District. People want to work, they need to work. Over the past 14 years under the current congressman, jobs have been going away, not coming here. We need to step forward and start creating jobs.”

“Lamb has some experience in that regard, operating Lamb and Browne P.C., a small, full-service law firm based in Holliston.  

“”I’m the only candidate that owns a small business,” Lamb said. “I’ve experienced the difficulties that go along with creating jobs and the problems of retaining jobs.””

This is the candidate we need in Congress.  At his website, Marty For Congress, you will find detailed proposals for solving the financial problems our country is currently experiencing.  Marty is not afraid to go on the record with his plans and solutions.  We need to elect him to implement those plans.  I need to mention here that I know Marty Lamb personally.  Before I retired, I worked for a company that did business with his law firm.  His firm was pleasant to deal with, paid their bills on time, and was run in a totally ethical manner.  I am proud to be supporting him for Congress.  I truly believe that he is the man we need to send to Washington.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about the Ground Zero mosque.  He points out that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio:

“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded, How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”

Well, if Ms. Pelosi is ready to investigate the funding of those objecting to the mosque, she may have a long list of people to investigate.  In his post, Scott Johnson confesses that he opposes the mosque, but is a volunteer. 

The article goes on to state:

“I have also disparaged President Obama’s support of the Ground Zero Mosque at the White House iftar dinner on Friday night. You might want to look into why President Obama backtracked on his support on Saturday before he sent his information minister out to support it again on Sunday. There’s something fishy there, don’t you think?

“I can’t speak for Debra Burlingame, the sister of American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Chic Burlingame. I’m pretty sure she hasn’t taken any money either, but the name of that group she’s affiliated with — 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America — sounds suspicious to me.

“Charles Krauthammer has devoted an entire nationally syndicated Washington Post column to expressing his opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. I believe he is remunerated for his work, but I don’t think he took any money under the table for the Ground Zero Mosque column. You might want to ask your friends at the Post to check up on him.

“I should add that Michelle Malkin is exhibiting highly suspicious behavior. She not only harbors impure thoughts about the Ground Zero Mosque, she thinks you should be investigated for the Treasure Island land grab. Talk about guilty!

“UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi, Hugh Hewitt is also sounding mighty guilty, and Glenn Reynolds is suspiciously sarcastic!

“MORE: Bill Kristol isn’t helping his case either.”

I guess I need to figure out where I should go to turn myself in!

The debate on the Ground Zero mosque continues.  It has become a national political issue.  Generally speaking, it breaks politically along liberal/conservative lines.  There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.  Well, there is a new twist.

The same liberal Democrats who support the Ground Zero mosque and tell the conservative Republicans to ‘get over it’ are protesting a rally to be held in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. 

Andrews Breitbart’s blog Big Peace reports some of the comments by civil rights leaders:

“Beck’s choice of day and place for the rally “is insulting, is what it is,” Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in an interview Monday. “August 28 is something special. It is a day that means something in American history because it was the demonstration in the United States in support of civil rights.”

“Beck’s plans are “an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the civil rights community because Glenn Beck and his public utterances don’t necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the vision of King.””

They might have looked at the rally a little more closely before they made their statements.  The rally is being called the “Restoring Honor Rally” at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.  It is being sponsored by Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin will be attending.  The rally will also include David Barton, founder of WallBuilders.

According to the article:

“(Glenn) Beck said that he has no plans on turning his rally into a partisan political rally but intends it to be a rally to, “honor the troops, unite the American people under the principles of integrity and truth, and make a pledge to restore honor within ourselves and our country.” Beck further says that the date was not a conscious choice but just fit his schedule.”

That does not sound like anything Martin Luther King, Jr., would have objected to.

The article concludes:

“Democrat’s opinion we should refuse to allow Beck, an American who wants to support his country’s military, to hold a rally because it falls on a certain day and is held at a certain location, but we should not oppose people that sport a foreign ideology antithetical to American principles to build at a place that will promulgate that ideology near the same spot where their fellows killed thousands of Americans.

“The pretzel logic the left employs is a wonder, indeed.”

I guess the logic depends totally on who is involved.

Yesterday’s Washington Times posted a report on the verdict in the Rod Blagojevich trial in Chicago.  Rod Blagojevich was convicted on one count–lying to the FBI, only one of the twenty-four charges against him.  The maximum penalty for lying to a federal agent is five years in prison.  One juror reported that a single, female juror held voted against all the other charges, but agreed to that charge. 

According to the article:

“Mr. Sarnello (one of the jurors), of Itasca, Ill., later told the Associated Press that one woman on the panel “just didn’t see what we all saw.” Other members of the 12-person jury tried to persuade the holdout to reconsider, but “at a certain point, there was no changing,” he said.”

The Justice Department has agreed to retry to case after a judge declared a mistrial on twenty-three of the charges because of the deadlocked jury. 

The interesting turn in this trial occurred when Rod Blagojevich reversed his prior decision to testify.  The reason for this was either that the defense felt that they had already won the case and did not want to take a chance on his testimony losing it after it had been won or, along the same lines, Rod Blagojevich testifying in itself would have represented a considerable risk.  Former-Governor Blagojevich was known for his rather flamboyant style and might easily have gotten carried away on the witness stand and said things that would have undermined his defense. 

There is, of course, a reasonable amount of speculation about why the one juror was the lone holdout on twenty-three of the twenty-four counts.  If the Democrats fixed the jury to avoid the convinction of a Democrat governor during an election cycle, they made a mistake.  This verdict, combined with the fact that the Justice Department plans to retry the case, will keep the concept of Chicago political corruption in front of the voters through the election season.  If there was jury-tampering involved, it probably was not the best way to handle this trial.

It is understood by most of the world that the United Nations, the United States of America, and a number of interested parties have been unsuccessful in stopping Iran’s nuclear program.  Today’s Jerusalem Post posted an interview with former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton regarding Iran going nuclear..

Ambassador Bolton warned that if Russia follows through on its plan to deliver the fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor this weekend, Israel has only a few days to strike the plant.  After the fuel is delivered, a strike will trigger widespread radiation throughout the Middle East.

This is playing out as if it were a chess match.  By announcing that they will deliver the fuel to Iran this weekend, Russia took any element of surprise away from an Israeli attack.  The situation is further complicated by the fact that in addition to the Bushehr reactor, Iran has a number of uranium enrichment plants which are seen as the backbone of its nuclear weapons program.  Experts point out that Israel would be more likely to attack these plants than Bushehr.  Another part of the calculation is the fact that if Israel attacked the Iranian nuclear weapons program, Russia would quite likely provide Iran with the advanced missile defense system it has promised Iran but has delayed delivering.

I have no idea how this will all play out.  I do know that the idea of Iran with nuclear weapons is not good for the prospect of world peace or peace in the Middle East.  I hope that someone (whether it is Israel or the United States) will step up to the plate and put Iran’s nuclear program out of action.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has introduced to move pensions from companies that have gone out of business to under the umbrella of federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

The article explains that:

“The PBGC is already significantly underfunded and taxpayers are its ultimate backstop. Yet the Casey bailout could dump as much as $165 billion in new liabilities on the PBGC, while multi-employer plans would get a clean bill of health. What a deal.

“This cause has taken on new political urgency, and no less than Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin has endorsed the bill. The reason for the rush is new rules that may soon be issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the green-eyeshade outfit that dictates how companies keep their books. Those proposed rules would expose the multi-employer time bomb.”  

The article reports:

“Thus the election year urgency to pass the Casey bill. If Democrats could shift orphan company pensions to the taxpayer, the liabilities for the remaining companies would fall dramatically, and the multi-employer scheme could continue. Unions and employers could keep promising current workers fabulous pay and benefits, without which they have little chance of stemming their continuing decline in membership.

“The losers? Those would be existing retirees in multi-employer plans, who were also promised such benefits but whose pensions would now be dumped on the feds. Even under Mr. Casey’s bill, payouts to current retirees would be limited to $21,000 a year–a fraction of what workers expected to receive.”

The bottom line here is very simple.  Unions will not have to use their dues to keep their pension funds solvent–the American taxpayer will do it.  Why would the taxpayer subsidize union pensions at the same time Social Security is operating at a deficit?

Stay tuned.  This legislation has a hight priority for the fall session of Congress.  It needs to be stopped.

This story is based on two sources, a Washington Post article posted Monday, and an article by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air also posted Monday.

The Washington Post reports:

“Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope.”

The drug in question is Avastin.

The article further states:

“Avastin was the first drug designed to fight cancer by blocking blood flow to tumors, which has been hailed as one of the first significant innovations in decades in the war on cancer. But Avastin is also one of the most expensive of a new generation of anti-cancer medications that only eke out a few extra months of life.”

The article at Hot Air points out:

“With the new ObamaCare regime in place, the issue of cost has now become openly part of the FDA process.  This is a perversion of their mission, which is supposed to only involve product safety and effectiveness, not bean-counting.  If Medicare doesn’t want to cover Avastin, that should be a separate issue handled by CMS and HHS.  This strongly suggests that the FDA has become politicized to a degree where their recommendations lose credibility — a dangerous situation for consumers and providers alike.”

This is one of those articles that I can honestly say I have no idea what the right answer is.  If you follow the link to the Hot Air article, you find the story of Leslie Twohig, 48, of Lothian, Md., who has been taking Avastin for eight months and credits the drug with helping her survive.  How much is her life worth?

The only thing I can conclude is that I believe to take an expensive drug to extend a period of extreme suffering is not right, but to take an expensive drug to prolong a life that is functioning well makes sense.  However, that is a personal opinion and I have no idea how it would work in a health insurance setting (particularly one run by the government). 

It seems to me that when we take treatment decisions away from doctors and put them in the hands of government bureaucracies, we are moving away from quality healthcare–not toward improving the system.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting today that the Department of Justice has completed its six-year investigation into Tom DeLay’s relationship with corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and found that there were no valid charges against Tom DeLay. 

The article reports:

“The Justice Department has informed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay’s lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods.

“The investigation lasted through two presidents and four attorneys general. Its demise provides a stark footnote to the lobbying scandals that helped Democrats regain the House majority they held for 40 years and lost in the Republican revolution of 1994, which eventually made the pugnacious DeLay one of Washington’s top power brokers.”

Regardless of what you think of Tom DeLay, this whole lawsuit was an example of the Democrats using the Department of Justice for political purposes.  Tom DeLay’s political career was destroyed and the charges against him were used to defeat his political party in an election.  There was no substance to the charges, but they were still used very effectively against Tom DeLay and the Republicans. 

The outcome of this case should make us all think very carefully before we vote in November.  The time has come to believe very little of what you see and less of what you hear.  Do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and vote carefully.

CNS News posted an article today stating that Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Arizona, claims that the  U.S. Border Patrol has pulled back from enforcing the border in his county and neighboring counties because it is ‘too dangerous.’ 

According to the article:

“Dever stressed that the Border Patrolmen are ready and willing to perform their mission of securing the border, but that Border Patrol managers had determined that in “some places” the danger was too great and they wanted to avoid the risk of an international incident such as a cross-border firefight.”

Evidently the fear of provoking an international incident is more important than protecting American citizens. 

Customs and Border Protection replied to these charges by saying:

“There are areas down there in the Tucson Sector where for officer safety reasons, officers aren’t up on the line. For whatever reason–it may be a remote area,” said a CBP spokesperson. “We still have the means to detect entry, whether it is a sensor or a scoped vehicle. So the entry is detected, but the apprehension of the undocumented migrant isn’t affected until they reach a safe area.”

Somehow I wonder if everyone detected is actually caught.  The thing to remember here is that there are many people coming across the border illegally who are not simply looking for a better life where they can earn money to send back to their families.  A porous border is an open invitation to terrorists to smuggle people and weapons into America without fear of being stopped.  We need to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Today’s U. K. Daily Mail posted a story about President Obama’s remarks on Friday night and Saturday morning regarding the mosque to be built at Ground Zero.  If you question my statement that the mosque will actually be at Ground Zero, please remember that the building that will be torn down to build the mosque was damaged on September 11, 2001, when the tail section of one of the planes fell through the roof after flying through one of the towers.

The opening statements in the article are quotes from President Obama:

One of the statements I have heard from some of our politicians is that the building of the mosque is a local issue for New Yorkers.  I would like to point out that September 22, 2001, represented an attack on America–not simply New York. 

I would also like to mention that as I was driving around this morning running errands, I had an opportunity to listen to some of the local Massachusetts talk shows that I generally don’t get to hear.  If the callers on Massachusetts local talk shows are any indication, this is a national issue.  I don’t think anyone would argue that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque anywhere the zoning allows.  The problem is not one of rights, but one of sensitivities.  Anyone who understands the history of Islam and the significance of originally calling this mosque the Cordoba Mosque realizes that building this mosque is a provocative move.

Yes, the Muslims have the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero.  No, they should not be allowed to do so.

Fox News reported Friday on a press conference held by Maxine Waters to explain her roll is acquiring bailout money for a bank in which her family held a financial interest. 

According to the article Congresswoman Waters stated:

“…she had to intervene with the Treasure Department on behalf of minority-owned bankds seeking federal bailout funds — including one tied to her husband — because the Treasure Department wouldn’t schedule its own appointments.”

Congresswoman Waters further stated:

“…she reached out to then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in late 2008 when his department failed to respond to the National Bank Association’s request for a meeting.”

That is very interesting since when the meeting was actually held, the only bank (out of an organization representing more than 100 minority banks) that showed up was OneUnited, the bank in which she had a personal interest. 

Congresswoman Walters says that she has not violated House rules and that she will not cut a deal (but obviously, if she actually did anything wrong, it was George Bush’s fault!).  It is going to be an interesting autumn.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a federal land grab proposed by the Obama Administration.  Mr. Morrissey points out that the federal government already  controls one in every three acres of American land. 

The article reports:

“At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.””

It should be noted at this point that the extremist elements of the environmental movement want the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight.  The Fund is currently supported by receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases.

The article points out that:

“…in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages. The Democrats have also included a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters.”

In reponse to its actions, the Obama Administration received a letter from Texas state officials stating the following:

“”In light of federal failures, it is incomprehensible that the United States Congress is entertaining proposals that expand federal authority over oil and gas drilling in state water and lands long regulated by states… Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state land and waters not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environmental and economy security of our state’s citizens.””

The thing to remember here is that the more land the government owns, the less land the private sector owns.  The less land the private sector owns, the less land is available for private sector use that might grow the economy.  Private sector uses of land that might apply in this case might be family recreation areas, in New England, ski areas, camping areas, and other businesses that would hire people, make a profit, and pay taxes.  This is another example of the administration’s lack of understanding of how the private sector grows the economy.

If you follow the link above to the Hot Air article, there is a clip from the movie “Blazing Saddles” that deals with land grabs!

Thursday’s Science Daily website posted an article about the effects of playing Nintendo Wii on people who have Parkinson’s disease.  Parkinson’s disease is a degenerative disease that impairs motor skills. 

Dr. Ben Herz of the Medical College of Georgia conducted an eight-week pilot study where 20 Parkinson’s patients spent an hour playing the Wii three times a week for four weeks. 

According to the article:

“Participants showed significant improvements in rigidity, movement, fine motor skills and energy levels. Perhaps most impressively, most participants’ depression levels decreased to zero.”

The article concludes:

“Game systems are the future of rehab,” Dr. Herz says. “About 60 percent of the study participants decided to buy a Wii for themselves. That speaks volumes for how this made them feel.””

The idea that people who suffer from Parkinson’s disease can enjoy themselves by playing Wii and at the same time improve their symptoms is fantastic.  Our local senior center also has a Wii that seniors can use during their time at the center.  This is definitely a situation where something designed to be fun actually has another really valuable use.