The Federal Government and the media are working very hard to avoid telling us how serious the unemployment situation is in America right now.  On September 9 at RightWingGranny, I posted an article explaining the the unemployment numbers released on that day were estimates, not real figures.  The article reported that:

“For the latest reporting week, nine states didn’t file claims data to the Labor Department in Washington because of the federal holiday earlier this week, a Labor Department official told reporters. As a result, California and Virginia estimated their figures and the U.S. government estimated the other seven, the official said.”

The estimated numbers was used as a rationale for the statement “applications for U.S. unemployment benefits declined more than forecast last week, easing concern that employers will accelerate firings as the world’s largest economy cools”  The statement was based on estimates, not true numbers.  Well, guess what.  The real number are out.  CNN Money reported today that “the number of first-time filers for unemployment benefits rose to 465,000 in the week ended Sept. 18.”  The article at CNN also mentioned that “it also marked an increase from the upwardly revised 453,000 initial claims filed in the previous week, which was shortened by Labor Day.”

The article further states that investors were disappointed with the higher than expected numbers for this week and the upward revision of last week’s numbers.  Didn’t they read the small print that said last week’s numbers were estimated by the government?  If the recession were truly over, as President Obama is telling us, wouldn’t these numbers be going down? 

Good Grief!

What we teach our children matters.  The images we put in front of them from the beginning of their lives are important in forming their opinions and values.  With this in mind, I was glad to see that the producers of Sesame Street have pulled Katy Perry’s duet with Elmo from the show.  To see the picture that clearly shows the reason why, follow this link to the New York Daily News. 

In the view of many people, the dress Katy Perry is wearing would be appropriate at certain occasions.  I am not one of those people.  If women expect to be treated as people with brains, emotions, and talents, rather than bodies, they need to learn to dress.  I am not suggesting being covered from head to foot, but there is no reason to display that kind of cleavage unless you are walking Times Square New York looking for work (and actually I think Times Square has undergone major positive changes since that statement applied). 

If we expect our young women to grow up with self-respect, we need to teach them that short skirts and low cleavage are not the road to success.  We need to teach them to value themselves for who they are rather than what they look like.  We live in a visual society, and that is not going to change.  What we can do is to change young women’s ideas of how they need to look to be socially and professionally successful.  Until those ideas change, the stores will continue to sell topless, bottomless dresses, skin-tight jeans, and other articles of clothing that are truly not appropriate for anyone to wear.

Women are responsible for the respect they are given.  As I said, we don’t need to be covered from top to bottom, but we do need to take an honest look in the mirror before we leave the house and see what impression we are giving to the people who see us.

Congratulations to Sesame Street for pulling the duet!

Today Nonie Darwish posted an article at Front Page Magazine containing some off-the-cuff comments by Imam Feisal Abdel Rauf, the Muslim cleric planning to build the Ground Zero Mosque.  The statements made by the Imam indicate that he is a stealth jihadist who supports the creation of an Islamic State, “The Ummah,” in America.

The statements by the Imam were made on June 20, 2006.  After an interview, after the Imam was told that the interview had ended, the Imam spoke of his “game plan for achieving an Islamic State without borders, which–in his mind–had previously existed and should have continued to exist, if not for Western interference in the last century.”  The Imam discussed other objectives–“manipulating U. S. foreign policy, advocating for Hamas, and getting “power” on his side to push back the opposing “interests.””

If you follow the link to the website above, you will find a video of the Imam.  The article quotes the Imam as follows:

“If the entertainment media, the news media, was broadcasted in print, describe and speak about the issues in a different way it can help change perceptions profoundly, because it’s the media, which helps shape perceptions to a great degree. So if we have strategic action plays, designed plays, in the area of foreign policy, in the area of healing the divide, and then you unpack and give up Israel. You then have to have your offensive coaching stuff, your offensive coach and defensive coach and your head coach, we have to have our Palestinian coach, etc.”

I wonder how long we will wait to see any of this in our morning paper.  Please read the article at Front Page Magazine to get the full content.

This is an interesting year to be running for Congress.  No one is actually sure what November will bring.  Massachusetts is looking like a two-party state for the first time in many years.  Many of the people who have previously run for office without Republican candidates to oppose them now face election campaigns against extremely qualified and motivated candidates.  President Clinton has stumped the Fourth Congressional District to help Barney Frank, who is being challenged by Sean Bielat, a serious and well-qualified candidate.

In the Third Congressional District incumbent Jim McGovern is being challenged by Marty Lamb, a local small businessman who has injected some humor into the campaign.  During the Republican primary (there were five candidates running in the Republican primary for the Third District–last year Congressman McGovern ran unopposed), Marty Lamb handed out barf bags with the words “Are You Sick Of Congress?” and his legislative platform printed on them.

This week, Marty Lamb’s campaign office released this statement:

Marty Lamb, Republican candidate for Congress in Massachusetts Third District, sent one of his barf bags full of acorns over to Congressman McGovern’s office to make the point that this long term incumbent has gone too far.

“People are sick over his vote to fund ACORN,” said Lamb. “Failing to bar all federal funding for ACORN after being exposed for fraud shows you how extreme McGovern is and how he is so blinded by extreme partisanship.”

Congressman James McGovern voted to keep funding this controversial group Acorn, Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now, even after they were exposed for fraud and corruption. The incumbent voted against recommitting H.R. 3221 to the Education and Labor Committee with instruction that it be immediately reported back with language that would bar federal agreements from being entered into with ACORN. This House vote came after a long list of numerous voter registration fraud convictions and the video was released of Acorn’s workers helping set up a child prostitution business. (172 Democrats voted for recommitting.)

“What sort of message does this send to our children? Fraud and corruption are ok, if you are politically connected? What ever happened to accountability?” questioned Lamb. “Voting to continue to fund Acorn is just one of many votes that proves McGovern has gone too far.”

Moreover, McGovern also voted to block an amendment from being considered on the House floor that would prevent any funding for the Census Bureau being made available to Acorn and voted to block another amendment from being considered on the House floor that would prohibit funding in fiscal year 2010 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriates bill from being made available to Acorn.

Since 1994 Acorn has received $53 million in federal funding.

This is the kind of originality and creativity that we need in Washington.

This is not an article about racism.  That is another matter.  This is an article about soft bigotry and how it impacts the judgement and perspective of some of the people responsible for educating or children.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article yesterday about an experiment conducted by by University of Illinois Professor Fred Gottheil.  The source of Mr. Johnson’s story was Front Page Magazine.  According to Power Line:

“Prof. Fred Gottheil told Frontpagemag.com that he compiled a list of 675 email addresses from 900 signatures on a 2009 petition authored by Dr. David Lloyd, professor of English at the University of Southern California, urging the U.S. to abandon its ally, Israel. Prof. Gottheil discovered that six of the signers, who hailed from more than 150 college campuses, were members of his own faculty.

“”Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?” he wondered. “I felt it was worth a try.”

“The results? “Almost non existent,” he told Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 “self-described social-justice seeking academics” agreed to sign Gottheil’s Statement of Concern – less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.”

The blindness of the liberal professors in America that is caused by a solid dislike of Israel is amazing.  In their anti-Israel stand, the professors have chosen to overlook the human rights violations contained in Sharia Law, a basic part of the Islamic faith.  I wonder how many of the signers of the original petition were woman who would not be allowed to hold university positions in a Muslim society.  I wonder how many signers of the original petition would willingly murder a rebellious daughter.  Sometimes a negative opinion of one thing causes our perspective to shift to the point where we totally ignore the serious misdeads of something else.  The professors who signed the first petition and not the second need to find a new perspective.

There is an effort being made to protect voters from voter intimidation; unfortunately, that effort is not coming from the White House or the Obama Justice Department.

This article is based on two stories posted on the internet yesterday, one at the Washington Times and one at the Washington Examiner.  The stories relate to the voter intimidation that took place in Philadelphia in the 2008 election.  The New Black Panthers are seen in a YouTube video holding billy clubs and intimidating voters.  The Justice Department did not invoke any serious charges against the Black Panthers and that has led to speculation that the case was dismissed for purely political reasons. 

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to obtain documents from the Justice Department related to the handling of this case. 

According to Judicial Watch, the documents they obtained:

“…contradict sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that no political leadership was involved in the decision (Judicial Watch v. Department of Justice (No. 10-851)).”

This is the update on the case from the Judicial Watch website:

“The Justice Department originally filed its lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party following an incident that took place outside of a Philadelphia polling station on November 4, 2008. A video of the incident, showing a member of the New Black Panther Party brandishing police-style baton weapon, was widely distributed on the Internet. According to multiple witnesses, members of the New Black Panthers blocked access to polling stations, harassed voters and hurled racial epithets. Nonetheless, the Justice Department ultimately overruled the recommendations of its own staff and dismissed the majority of its charges.

“”These documents show the Obama Justice Department’s decision to drop the Black Panther case was certainly political and potentially corrupt,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “The Black Panther decision is a scandal for the Obama administration and it merits serious attention by investigators. Assistant Attorney General Perez seems to have been less than candid in his sworn testimony when he said no political appointees were involved in the decision. This scandal has just gotten a whole lot worse for the Obama Justice Department.””

I don’t know how much of the media will actually report what has happened here, but it is obvious that the Justice Department has become political.  That is not only unfortunate, it is unconstitutional.  It is time to elect people who will go to Washington and clean this mess up.

Last night I attended a meeting of the Northborough Tea Party.  The purpose of the meeting was to bring together all the candidates who had participated in the recent Republican primary in a show of unity.  The meeting was held at the Northborough Library.  The room was packed, standing room only, and the crowd stayed after the meeting to talk with the candidates.

I live in Norfolk County, so many of the candidates were not in my district.  However, I was truly impressed with the qualifications and energy level of all the candidates who spoke.  There were four statewide candidates who spoke; they were well qualified and had good ideas for Massachusetts.

I have written before about Jim McKenna‘s successful write-in campaign to run against incumbent Martha Coakley for Massachusetts Attorney General.   Last night Jim reported that at last count, his write-in campaign had more than 25,000 votes.   It is unusual in this state for a write-in candidate to even reach the threshold of 10,000 votes to qualify to be on the ballot.  His vote count shows that he has the ability to organize and get things done.  His platform was simple–enforce the laws regarding illegal immigrants, and deal with the corruption that has invaded Beacon Hill.  He is an energetic candidate who will bring positive change to Massachusetts.

Bill Campbell is the Republican candidate for Massachusetts Secretary of State.   He stated his plans to protect our election process.  He opposes Election Day Registration–the risk of fraud is too great and the cost to the Commonwealth is too high.  He supports changes that will ensure military ballots are counted.   He also supports voters having to show identification when they vote.  In Massachusetts you can’t buy a pack of cigarettes without showing identification–voting is much more important.

Mary Z. Connaughton is running for State Auditor.   She is a CPA and an auditor and is extremely qualified for the position.  Her platform included enhancing communication and government transparency through technology and the Internet.  If she is elected, she will audit the spending by the legislature, something that is not currently done.  She has the experience and the knowledge to bring positive change to Massachusetts.

Karyn Polito is the Republican candidate for State Treasurer.   Her platform included making changes in the state pension plans from this point forward.   The changes she proposed would save the State money and cut down on future unfunded liabilities.  Karyn has served as a state lawmaker and has a record of fighting tax increases and wasteful spending.  She would definitely be a force for fiscal sanity if she is elected.

It is exciting that the Republicans in Massachusetts have produced such an impressive group of candidates.  If you live in Massachusetts and truly want positive change, these are the people who deserve your vote.

John McCormack at the Weekly Standard posted an article on the internet with the title, “Koch Industries Lawyer to White House:  How Did You Get Our Tax Information?”

David Koch is the founder of the group Americans for Prosperity, a free-market political group. 

According to the article:

“…a senior Obama administration official told reporters at an August 27 on-the-record background briefing on corporate taxes:

“So in this country we have partnerships, we have S corps, we have LLCs, we have a series of entities that do not pay corporate income tax. Some of which are really giant firms, you know Koch Industries is a multibillion dollar businesses. So that creates a narrower base because we’ve literally got something like 50 percent of the business income in the U.S. is going to businesses that don’t pay any corporate income tax. They point out [in the report] you could review the boundary between corporate and non-corporate taxation as a way to broaden the base.”

The Weekly Standard sent an e-mail to White House press officials to confirm the quote; 72 hours later, the White House has not yet replied.  However, the Weekly Standard has confirmed the quote from an independent source who was at the briefing.

Mark Holden, senior vice president and general counsel of Koch Industries, is quoted in the article:

“I’m not accusing any one of any illegal conduct. But it’s my understanding that under federal law, tax information, is confidential and it’s not to be disclosed or obtained by individuals except under limited circumstances. … I don’t know what [the senior administration official] was referring to. I’m not sure what he’s saying. I’m not sure what information he has. But if he got this information–confidential tax information–under the internal revenue code … if he obtained it in a way that was inappropriate, that would be unlawful. But I don’t know that that’s the case.”

At a time when Obamacare is adding sixteen thousand more agents to the IRS, all of us need to be concerned about the privacy of our tax information.  During the Presidential campaign we saw that Joe the Plumber’s private files were accessed illegally when he spoke out against then-Senator Obama’s plan to “spread the wealth around.”  Admittedly that was done by a state worker and we don’t know if it was done at the request of the campaign, but it was still illegal.

Free and fair elections are part of the foundation of democracy.  That includes freedom for everyone to speak their mind without fear of private personal or corporate records illegally accessed and exposed.

There are no guarantees that the Republicans will take over either the House or the Senate after November, but there are no guarantees that they won’t either.  So some people who study these things have a few comments on what should happen next.  I found one today that I agreed with–I even agreed with the word he made up to describe what the Republicans needed.

Ron Meyer posted an article at the Daily Caller today entitled, “Republicans need some badassity.”  He lists five traits we need in our leadership as we increase our numbers in Congress.

1.  Non-nancypelosiness

2.  Ability to articulate freedom

3.  Solution-oriented

4.  Love for Federalism

5.  Badassity

These qualities are pretty self-explanatory, but as usual, I will add my two cents.  1.  Ms. Pelosi represents San Francisco, not mainstream America.  That is fine for the people of San Francisco, but not for the rest of us.  2.  We need leadership that can educate us on our founding values, the freedoms we have historically had, and why they are important.  3.  “No” is not a solution, although it may be the beginning of finding one.  We need a leader who can come up with creative solutions (within the Constitution, thank you) to the problems we face.  4.  We need a leader who will turn power back to the states, not grab more power for the federal government.  Again, we need a leader who respects the Tenth Amendment. 

The article comments on trait No. 5:

“Yes, I made that word up, but I think you get what it means.

“One moment that comes to mind is when Boehner dropped the entire stimulus bill–over 1,400 pages–on the floor of the House, sending a thud across the chamber reminding everyone watching of its massive size.”

The article also described Chris Christie as having trait No. 5.

The bottom line here is simple.  If the Republicans take power again, they need to act like Republicans.  The example to follow is Ronald Reagan.  He stood for his principles firmly, but politely.  He spoke softly, but there was never really any doubt about what he believed or that he would not give in on his principles.

America is a big country, and sometimes we are unaware of what is actually going on in other areas of our country.  Big Government posted a story yesterday by Sheriff Larry Dever Sheriff of Cochise County Arizona.  Sheriff Dever is an elected sheriff who has served for fourteen years.  He states in his article that he has always had a listed phone number.  He talks about the nighttime phone calls he has been receiving since 1998. 

According to the article:

“…Now I don’t sleep, as my residents call each night sometimes panicky, sometimes resigned to this as a way of life, but always with a shaky voice: “they are at my door.”  This is not a weekend activity.  This is every single night.  Cochise County is a gateway to tens of thousands of illegal aliens entering the U.S. to provide the rest of our country with drugs.  If my deputies and I are prohibited from enforcing the law to stop these border jumpers, your families in Plainsville, Ohio, or Charlotte, North Carolina, are going to continue to be in harm’s way and see the percentage of crimes by illegal aliens rise.”

He further states:

“And lest you think we are mainly apprehending a workforce eager to come work illegally for our residents, it’s not about people anymore, it’s about drug smugglers and other criminal aliens.  My deputies and I keep watch on the border each night, doing our best to apprehend the dozens of men with 75-pound backpacks filled with marijuana who hop the fence, usually when the Federal Border Patrol Agents have their official shift changes. Sadly, Border Patrol agents working this problem are more often than not limited in their capacity to cope by inept policy making in Washington, D.C. Our government is supposed to be making tactical decisions about a situation that worsens by the day and is truly chaotic and frankly, war-like.”

One of our federal government’s duties is to secure our borders.  Unfortunately, the current politicians in Washington are refusing to do that.  In fact, they are so busy doing things that the Constitution does not give them the power to do that there is no money or energy left to enforce the borders.

As the November election approaches, we need to examine all candidates to see which ones are willing to enforce our borders.  Illegal immigration should not be seen as a way to register voters and thus win elections–it is a very expensive problem that leads to other problems in crime, healthcare and education.  We need to cut the amount of red tape for people who want to come here legally and contribute to American society, but we don’t need to open the doors for drug dealers and criminals to casually stroll across the border illegally.

Yesterday Power Line reported on protests at the Right Nation 2010 convention, which has been going on in Chicago.  Andrew Breitbart, who attended the convention, was spit on and called a homosexual by supposed “religious” activists.  There is video of the encounter at Power Line and at the Big Government website.

There are a few things to pay attention to here.  The protesters were from the group Organizing For America (OFA), essentially a left-leaning union group.  I don’t know if the protesters were paid or simply ‘strongly’ encouraged to show up, but they were bussed in!  I have heard stories locally about union workers who were told that if they did not attend a protest, their access to union jobs would be negatively impacted.  There is also a very small chance that these protesters were actually ‘religious’ protesters.

As the Tea Party gains strength because people are becoming tired of exponential government growth and spending, there will be both obvious and covert pushback from the political class who feel threatened by the movement.  Remember also that the Tea Party Express is different from the Tea Party.  The Tea Party Express is a Political Action Committee (PAC).  They are organized, they raise money, they support candidates, and they operate as any other PAC.  The Tea Party is a loosely organized group of citizens with no central leader, no dues, and no agenda other than educating people on the founding principles of America and preserving those principles.  One of our local tea parties meets regularly at the local library and studies the founding documents of America.  The local tea party also sponsored debates between Republican primary candidates.  Tea Party candidates tend to be Republican because they are generally more in line with Republican ideas.  Also, contrary to popular myth, the Democrat party would not generally be open to the kind of small government ideas the Tea Party embraces.

Anyway, my point is simple.  As we approach the November elections, be aware that things may not be what they appear to be.  Protesters may be paid, articles in the local paper may be based on things that are not true, and mischief will abound.  Pay attention and stay informed!

This story is not a joke.  It is based on a real article in the New York Times on September 15th of this year.

The article states:

“A curious phenomenon has emerged at the intersection of fashion, sports and crime: dozens of men and women who have robbed, beaten, stabbed and shot at their fellow New Yorkers have done so while wearing Yankees caps or clothing.”

The article further states:

“Since 2000, more than 100 people who have been suspects or persons of interest in connection with serious crimes in New York City wore Yankees apparel at the time of the crimes or at the time of their arrest or arraignment. The tally is based on a review of New York Police Department news releases, surveillance video and images of robberies and other crimes, as well as police sketches and newspaper articles that described suspects’ clothing. No other sports team comes close.

“The Mets, forever in the shadow of their Bronx rivals, are perhaps grateful to be losing this one: only about a dozen people in the same review were found to be wearing Mets gear.”

There is no one proven theory on why this trend exists although the article lists a few possibilities.  The article then goes on to cite some of the criminal history that Yankee caps have been involved in. 

This is one of those stories that makes me proud to be a Red Sox fan!

I’ve lost track of how many czars President Obama has appointed, but now we have one more.  According to a story in CNS News posted on Friday, Wall Street critic Elizabeth Warren has been named as a special advisor to set up a new government agency (oh joy!) to protect consumers in their dealings with banks, mortgage companies and other financial institutions. 

The article points out:

“Obama did not nominate Warren to be the bureau’s (Financial Protection Bureau) director, however. Instead he is creating a role that allows her to avoid a lengthy confirmation fight with Senate Republicans who view her as too critical of Wall Street and big banks. The business and banking community opposed Warren as director, contending she would make the agency too aggressive.”

This is an end run around the U. S. Constitution.  The Senate is supposed to have the roll of “advise and consent” on the President’s appointees to various positions.  The Democrat Senate is probably not going to make a fuss about not having their duties respected, but hopefully there will be a change in the makeup of the Senate in November.

If you want this sort of abuse of Presidential power to continue, vote Democrat in November.  If you would like to see America go back to her Constitution, vote Republican.  It is that simple.  If the Republicans do not behave better after taking control of Congress this time, we will have to vote them out too!  We are the voters.  We have the power of the ballot.  If you are not happy with how things are currently going, get out and vote in November.  Better still, get out and work for the candidate that most represents your values and ideas.  The time for sitting on the couch and complaining is over.  It is time to act.

Yesterday, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about two recent events–the arrest of terrorists in London who planned to kill the Pope and the fact that Molly Norris, who suggested “Everyone Draw Mohammed Day” has gone into hiding due to death threats.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that the religion behind these threats (Islam) has at least an element to it that is not peace-loving.  Islam is a political movement that operates under the disguise of a religion.  There are non-political Muslims, who love their god and have no interest in the political aspect of the religion, but they are afraid to speak out against the radical Muslims who resort to terrorism in an effort to spread their influence.  Until the religion-only Muslims begin to take control of their religion, we will have to deal with the terrorist element of the political-Islamic movement.

The London arrest involved street sweepers who were allegedly planning to place bombs in bins that would blow up the Pope as he traveled through central London.  Needless to say, many innocent people would also have been injured or killed in the explosions.

At the Seattle Weekly, Mark D. Fefer, the editor, has stated that “on the insistence of top security specialists at the F.B.I., she is, as they put it, ‘going ghost’: moving, changing her name, and essentially wiping away her identity.”  

This is the enemy we are currently facing–operating under the name of a religion of peace.  Until we realize that the ultimate aim of political-Islam is a worldwide caliphate enforcing Sharia Law, we cannot even fight this battle, much less win it.

Today’s Washington Post posted a story stating that Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for bailout funds has pledged to investigate “whether political considerations played a role in favoring hourly over salaried retirees.”   The investigation is being done at the request of the Republicans in Congress.

At question is the role of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (PBGC) and Delphi, formerly a division of General Motors.  General Motors spun off Delphi in 1999, and Delphi subsequently went bankrupt.  The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. eventually took over Delphi’s underfunded pension funds, paying its beneficiaries pennies on the dollar.  However, according to the article:

“But the UAW, unlike the salaried employees, had negotiated a prior agreement under which GM agreed to “top off” members’ pensions if an independent Delphi ever went bust. Honoring this commitment added $2.1 billion to the GM pension plan’s deficit in the fall of 2008, a time when GM, too, was rapidly going down the tubes.”

Thus, the Obama Administration honored the UAW pensions, but refused to pay the white-collar workers any more than they were legally supposed to get. 

The article further states:

“We’re talking a massive cost burden worth tens of billions of dollars. In theory, the PBGC could have taken it over, putting all UAW pensioners in the same position as Delphi’s salaried retirees. To be sure, given the PBGC’s precarious finances, this could have imposed a hit on taxpayers as well. But the administration might at least have pressed the UAW to reform its pensions, which are far more generous than those enjoyed by most workers.”

According to Steven Rattner, one of the members of the auto task force, in his book “Overhaul,”   General Motors did suggest that the UAW accept a pension freeze, but UAW officials refused even to discuss the idea.  In order not to jeopardize the negotiations, the Obama Administration agreed to fund the pensions.  Mr. Rattner says the decision was one of ‘crisis management.’  It will be interesting to see what the investigation turns up. 

The September 27, 2010, issue of The Weekly Standard has an article by Matthew Continetti about President Obama’s tax policies.  The opening paragraph states:

“The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire on January 1. President Obama wants to extend the current rates for households making less than $250,000, limiting the increase to the rich. Republicans say raising taxes in a weak economy is a mistake, full stop. And guess what, plenty of rank and file Democrats agree with them. Who says bipartisanship is dead?”

Thirty-one Democrats have sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi asking her not to raise taxes.  The article points out:

“”The more money we leave in private hands, the quicker our recovery will be,” Joe Lieberman told the Chamber of Commerce in Middlesex, Connecticut, last week. “Raising taxes in a weak economy could impair recovery,” Ben Nelson said in a recent press release.”

One aspect of this debate is that it proves that despite the Democrats’ claims at the time, George Bush’s tax cuts were not all for the rich!

The question that needs to be asked here is, “Whose money is it anyway?”  The argument from the President centers around ‘fairness’ and the ‘cost of the tax cuts.’  Why is it more fair to take money from people who have worked hard to earn it and not take money from people who earned less?  When did it become the government’s job to decide how much money you could earn before they started taking it away from you?  How can tax cuts cost when the money belongs to the people who earned it–not the government?

The article concludes:

“What if the key to recovery is aligning incentives in a way that promotes work, saving, and investment? In that case, wouldn’t you want to allow taxpayers to keep the dollars they earn? Wouldn’t you want to encourage people to earn more, rather than encourage dependence on government subsidies and transfers?”

When a behavior is rewarded, it increases.  When people are allowed to keep more of what they earn, they work harder to earn more.  The Obama Administration is moving in the wrong direction for recovery.  Congress is correct in wanting to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.  Pay attention to how your Congressmen vote, and remember these votes when you vote in November.

Anyone who reads this blog on a regular basis knows that I am not a fan of the United Nations.  However, most of the time they at least try to act like grown ups.  John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about the United Nations latest antics.

The Bush Administration avoided joining the United Nations’ Human Rights Council because of its virulent prejudice against Israel and lack of any meaningful commitment to human rights.  The Obama Administration decided to join the Council hoping that “engagement” could bring about reform.   Well, back to square one.

The article reports:

“Wednesday in Geneva during the current session of the U.N. Human Rights Council, the Obama administration became a willing participant in the U.N.’s imposition of an apartheid-style ban on representatives of the state of Israel. Despite the promises made by the administration that by joining the Council the United States would not become part of the problem, U.S. Ambassador to the Council Eileen Donahoe chose to attend and fully participate in a meeting that deliberately excluded anyone representing the Jewish state. …

“While Israelis are left standing in the hall during the Council’s regional group meetings, this week for the first time Libya took its seat as a full-fledged Council member. Other full voting members of the U.N.’s lead human rights body include such model citizens as Saudi Arabia, China, Cuba, Russia and Kyrgyzstan.”

The record of the U. N. Human Rights Council is abysmal.  The article points out that “moreover, the Council has never adopted a single resolution on Iran, and behind closed doors it terminated a tentative examination of human rights in Iran on March 26, 2007.”

Joining the U.N. Human Rights Council was a mistake.  We have given legitimacy to an organization that has nothing to do with actually supporting human rights.  We need to remove ourselves from the Council as soon as possible!

We learned from the mortgage meltdown (or at least I hope we did) that government interference in free markets has (negative) unintended consequences.  Well, I guess not all of us have learned.

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday that Democrats on the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection will hold a hearing next week on the proposed regulation of the gold industry. 

The article states:

“Just as the government is trying to prevent people from investing in anything other than T-Bills by raising taxes on taxable interest and dividends to confiscatory levels, it’s also trying to prevent you from parking your wealth in assets, like gold, that compete with the paper dollars issued by the Federal Reserve and the Treasury. A press release from Rep. Anthony Weiner, Democrat of New York, not yet (as of this instant) posted on Mr. Weiner’s Web site, announces that a September 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection (a subcommittee of Rep. Henry Waxman’s Commerce Committee) will focus on “legislation that would regulate gold-selling companies, an industry who’s [sic] relentless advertising is now staple of cable television.””

There are two obvious aspects of this–one, T-Bills are not selling–gold is, and two, most of the gold advertising is done on conservative news or talk radio shows.   Gold is marketed as a world-wide commodity, how in the world does Congress think they can regulate it?  This is nothing more than a shot across the bow at conservative news outlets and talk radio.  Somehow, I don’t think Fox News or talk radio will be intimidated.  This is also an attempt to turn the market on to T-Bills.  As the national debt increases, I don’t see that working either.

It will be interesting to watch the progress of these hearings.

Today’s Boston Herald is reporting that James McKenna, a former prosecutor from Millbury, has run a successful write-in primary campaign for state Attorney General and will be running against incumbent Martha Coakley. 

The article reports:

“McKenna worked for 10 years as a prosecutor, including three years as an assistant district attorney in the organized crime division of the Suffolk County district attorney’s office and six years as a prosecutor in the Worcester County district attorney’s office.

“In 1998 he moved to a private practice in insurance law and criminal appeals, but also served as a special assistant district attorney to ask the Supreme Judicial Court to affirm the conviction of the man found guilty of the 1994 murder of Paxton Police Chief Robert Mortell.”

Attorney McKenna stated that he decided to attempt a write-in campaign after the Republicans failed to recruit a candidate to run against Martha Coakley.  Successful write-in campaigns are unusual and require a lot of organization.  Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour has stated that the party will support McKenna in the November election. 

Today The Hill is reporting that Senator Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) has stated that he will introduce comprehensive immigration reform legislation in the Senate before the end of the year.  Senator Menendez made this announcement after a White House meeting with President Obama. 

According to the article:

“Menendez and Reps. Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.) and Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) met with the president at the White House on Thursday afternoon to discuss the ongoing Senate negotiations over the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act and its inclusion in the defense authorization bill.

“Obama supports the DREAM Act, as do Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).”

The purpose of this announcement is to wake up the Democrat base in the hope that they will get out and vote in November.  This legislation will not pass, although the Democrats may try to force it through in a lame-duck session after the election.  This is a political move aimed at stopping the criticism by Hispanics that they voted for President Obama and have gotten nothing in return. 

We desperately need immigration reform.  We need to make it easier for people who want to come to America to work to come here.  But we also need to deal with the problem of people who are here illegally.  I am not sure it is reasonable to expect people to respect our laws when they broke the law to get here.  It is time to reevaluate our immigration rules, cut through red tape, and allow the people who want to contribute to our society to immigrate..

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted an article about the rapid increase in poverty during the Obama Administration.  The official poverty rate figure will be released next week, but predictions are already out that the increase will jump nearly two points to 15 percent, the largest single-year increase since the government began keeping track.

The previous record for a single-year increase was held by the Carter Administration in 1980.  The article points out that our current financial problems go back to a housing bubble created by government-mandated mortgages going to millions of people who could never repay them.  The article points out that when the government interferes with the free market, there will always be unintended consequences.  We are currently paying the price for the government’s interference in the housing market.

The article concludes:

“…Often, those consequences harm most the very people who are the intended beneficiaries.  “The most important anti-poverty effort is growing the economy and making sure there are enough jobs out there,” Obama said last Friday at press conference.  If Obama really believes that, he’ll prove it by reversing course and moving to reduce government spending, regulation, debt and taxes.  If he refuses, more Americans will find themselves in the poorhouse.”

As John Kennedy stated in June 25, 1963:

“As they say on my own Cape Cod, a rising tide lifts all the boats. And a partnership, by definition, serves both partners, without domination or unfair advantage.”

Today those words would put him out of sync with his own Democrat party.  If you want to go back to prosperity, cut taxes and reduce spending, vote Republican in November.

Something to think about as you prepare to vote in November.  What were the qualifications this man had for the office to which he was elected?  What were the beliefs of the people he surrounded himself with and chose as advisors?

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency.  It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool.  It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

                             Author Unknown

Today’s Boston Herald posted a story on a primary election victory by Republican Jeffrey Perry, who will be facing Democrat William Keating in the race for the seat being vacated by U.S. Representative William Delahunt (Tenth Congressional District in Massachusetts).

Representative William Delahunt decided not to seek re-election after a controversy arose over his handling of the shooting case involving Amy Fisher while serving as the Norfolk County District Attorney.  The Republicans have targeted that seat for a pick-up, so the race will receive a lot of press.  Jeff Perry received 61% of the vote in a field of four candidates.

However, Massachusetts is not a reliable Democrat state right now.  People are angry at the people in Washington who don’t seem to be listening to them–both parties are angry with their representatives, and anything could happen in November.

There were a few other victories in the Massachusetts primaries last night that bear watching.  In the Fourth Congressional District (seat now held by Barney Frank), Sean Bielat received 60% of the votes in the Republican primary.  In the Third Congressional District, newcomer to politics Marty Lamb received 31% of the votes in a five-candidate field.  He will run against Jim McGovern.

Everything is Massachusetts has changed since the election of Scott Brown.  November is going to be interesting.  Neither Democrats or Republicans can afford to take anything for granted!

Today’s Washington Examiner posted a short commentary by  J.P. Freire on Christine O’Donnell’s primary election victory in Delaware.  The commentary opens with the doomsday comments from various sources that her primary victory will keep the Republicans from taking over the Senate. 

The article points out that the Republican Party establishment has made it very difficult for conservative candidates to get elected, and as a result, the grass roots of the party have taken matters into their own hands.  The Republican establishment has, on more than one occasion, supported a traditional part-time Republican (read “RINO”) over a conservative.  They have claimed that they were following the Buckley rule, but ignored it when convenient.  Now they are seeing the results of their actions.

I don’t know if Christine O’Donnell can win in Delaware.  I do know that voters across the country will no longer accept the status quo.  When the Republicans act the same as the Democrats, they can now expect to be challenged in a primary and voted out of office.  The Republican party has a choice–remain part of the established political class and fade into oblivion or wake up and get back to its conservative roots.

On a personal note, while I was standing at my local polling place holding a “Marty Lamb for Congress” sign (he won in his primary!), the woman next to me, who was holding a sign for another candidate for a different office told me “she was not voting for any more Republican weenies!”  She wasn’t going to vote for Democrats, but she was not going to vote for any Republican that was not willing to take a strong conservative stand.  And I live in Massachusetts!