One of the things that needs to be included in any reform of healthcare insurance is tort reform.  We have reached the point where the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors is through the roof, and the huge settlements awarded in lawsuits do not always go to the injured parties–the lawyers take a very large chunk.  I don’t begrudge lawyers earning a living (I raised one), but I do think that we have lost some of our perspective when it comes to damages and who collects them.

All this relates to an article in Friday’s Daily Caller.  The article deals with the role lawsuits have played in the practice of American medicine.  The article begins with the story of the British medical profession and the idea that the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine was causing autism.  Medical researcher Andrew Wakefield was working on a lawsuit and came up with ‘evidence’ to support his case.  His studies have been proven false since then. 

The article reports:

“The most disturbing effect of this fraud has been to convince many parents that no vaccines of any kind are worth getting for their children.  According to one publication, “vaccination levels plunged as low as 80% in the U.K…and in 2008, measles was declared endemic in Britain and Wales.”  Infections are surging elsewhere, too.  The BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL article reports that in California last summer, 10 babies dies from whooping cough “in the worse outbreak since 1958.””

As I said, the bogus research was put together for use in a lawsuit.  The article also cites a drug called Bendectin.  This is a drug used to cure morning sickness.  The drug is illegal in the United States, but used in Canada and Europe.  The article states that the drug was taken off the American market because lawyers used faulty medical conclusions to sue the company that manufactures it.

I am not a medical researcher and do not know what the standards for medical research are, but it seems to me that a medical researcher who does research for an attorney might not be entirely objective in his research.

On Friday, Charles Krauthammer posted a column at the Washington Post about the repeal of Obamacare.  He points out that the Congressional Budget Office numbers the Democrats are using to say that repealing Obamacare will increase the deficit actually say something else.  Dr. Krauthammer points out that the way Obamacare decreases the deficit is to raise taxes by  $770 billion while increasing spending by $540 billion.  It might also be noted that tax revenues are predicted–not guaranteed–while spending is guaranteed to be at least what is predicted, if not more.  To see an example of this, follow the link to a rightwinggranny.com on November 12, 2010, detailing what has happened to the plan to insure people with pre-existing medical conditions. 

Dr. Krauthammer points out:

“In fact, the whole Obamacare bill was gamed to produce a favorable CBO number. Most glaringly, the entitlement it creates – government-subsidized health insurance for 32 million Americans – doesn’t kick in until 2014. That was deliberately designed so any projection for this decade would cover only six years of expenditures – while that same 10-year projection would capture 10 years of revenue. With 10 years of money inflow vs. six years of outflow, the result is a positive – i.e., deficit-reducing – number. Surprise.”

The column by Dr. Krauthammer reminds Congress that they should not repeal Obamacare without offering a replacement.  He conludes:

“But amending an insanely complicated, contradictory, incoherent and arbitrary 2,000-page bill that will generate tens of thousands of pages of regulations is a complete non-starter. Everything begins with repeal.”

That is why the vote in the House last week to repeal Obamacare was not symbolic–it was real.  Now the idea is to get Senators on the record as to whether or not they are willing to try to get healthcare reform right.  What was passed last year was a tribute to special interests and pork with very little regard for the consumers of health care.  Hopefully this Congress can put together something much less complicated and much better.

Card Check is the voting process in union elections in which the secret ballot is eliminated.   An employee votes on whether or not he thinks his company should unionize while a union representative is standing there waiting for him to mark his card.  It takes away a true free election–it lets either the unions bosses or the company bosses know who they need to intimidate.  The unions have been pushing card check because they believe they will be the winners if it goes into effect.  The unions are looking for more members for two reasons–more members means more power and influence politically, and more members will help delay the day of reckoning for the union pension funds.  More members means more dues, more dues means more money to pay pensions that have not been fully funded.  However, union membership is not growing.

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday:

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics says unions lost 612,000 members in 2010. That drops the unionized share of the work force to 11.9 percent from 12.3 percent in 2009.”

“In the private sector, union membership is down to 6.9 percent, “a low point not seen since the infancy of the labor movement in the 1930s.” Unions continue to thrive only in monopoly environments, like professional sports and government.”

The report at the Bureau of Labor also states that 7.6 million out of 14.7 million union members are in the public sector.  Union membership is highest among older workers and lowest among younger workers.  The crunch point for the unions will come when the states are not able to pay the unfunded liabilities that are the pensions the unions have demanded in their bargaining agreements.  I don’t know what the legal outcome will be, but there are several states that are looking into something similar to bankruptcy in order to get out from under union contracts.  At that point the value of having the union do your negotiating decreases drastically and paying your dues becomes an expense that has no benefit.  It is going to be an interesting year for the unions.

Money.msn.com is reporting today that the U. S. Government has awarded Black & Veatch a no-bid contract for an electricity project in southern Afghanistan.  Last year the Government had promised a competitive bidding process on the contract.

The article reports:

“In January 2010, USAID said companies would compete for the electricity project, awarded to Black & Veatch Corp. of Overland Park, Kansas, a company that the agency earlier had chastised for big cost overruns and busted deadlines on a diesel-fueled power plant in Kabul. But the government let 10 months pass before deciding to award a contract without competitive bids, saying that it couldn’t spend more time seeking offers.

“A rival company that was interested in bidding, Symbion Power LLC of Washington, D.C., said USAID broke its promise and spent more than it should to expand electricity into war-ravaged Helmand and Kandahar provinces in southern Afghanistan.”

I have no way of knowing whether this is sour grapes on the part of Symbion Power or if there is something underhanded about the way this was done.  One of the practices that has long been a problem within our government is the awarding of no-bid contracts to people who have in some way gained favor with an administration.  I hope that this is not an example of that process.  I would hope that Congress will put this contract on its list of things it needs to look into.

Back in the days of dinosaurs (the 1950’s), kindergarten was a place where you learned to build with blocks, paint, and get along with your fellow classmates.  Your teacher read stories, you had snacks, and generally speaking, life was good.  Somewhere between then and now kindergarten changed–not necessarily for the better.  Now kindergarteners write, begin to read, learn their numbers, etc.  It’s much more complicated.  I don’t know if they still learn how to get along with their fellow classmates, which brings me to the point of this article.

Yesterday Hot Air reported that Keith Olbermann abruptly left MSNBC.  In 2008 Mr. Olbermann had signed a four-year contract extension, so his departure was rather sudden.  The article reports that an agreement to end the contract between MSNBC and Mr. Olbermann was reached at the end of last week, but kept secret until last night.

Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story that reports:

“Olbermann returned from one last commercial break on “Countdown” to tell viewers it was his last broadcast, and read a James Thurber short story in a three-minute exit statement. Simultaneously, MSNBC e-mailed a statement that “MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract.” The network thanked him and said, “we wish him well in his future endeavors.””

The story at Hot Air has many updates that were added as the situation developed, but the overall conclusion is not reached until the end of the article:

“In recent weeks, sources tell Mediaite there have been meetings on the topic of Keith Olbermann and his future at the network. Did Comcast-as many Countdown viewers seem to suspect-order Olbermann out? It appears that the end of the Olbermann era at MSNBC was not “ordered” by Comcast, nor was it a move to tone down the network’s politics. Instead, sources inside the network say it came down to the more mundane world of office politics-Olbermann was a difficult employee, who clashed with bosses, colleagues and underlings alike, and with the Comcast-related departure of Jeff Zucker, and the rise of Maddow and O’Donnell, the landscape shifted, making an Olbermann exit suddenly seem well-timed.”

The bottom line here seems to be that Keith Olbermann never learned the lessons of kindergarten.  He was a difficult employee, and despite the fact that he brought viewers to the network, the network decided that it was not worth it.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about one of the latest investigations of the Obama Justice Department–the Department that has refused to deal with the voter intimidation issue caused by the New Black Panthers.

Common Cause has written a letter to Attorney General Holder charging an ethics violation by Supreme Court justices Scalia and Thomas.  This is the complaint:

“Common Cause hereby formally requests that the Justice Department promptly investigate whether Justices Thomas and Scalia should have recused themselves from the Citizens United case under 28 U.S.C. § 455. If the Department finds sufficient grounds for disqualification of either Justice, we request that the Solicitor General file a Rule 60(b) motion with the full Supreme Court seeking to vacate the judgment.”

So what exactly did the two judges do?  They were unpaid guest speakers at seminars sponsored by Koch Industries. 

The article points out:

“Common Cause writes that “no mention of such an event is listed on the Justices’ disclosure forms for 2008 and 2009.” I assume they are talking about financial disclosure forms, and that the justices’ speeches at the Koch seminars weren’t listed because they weren’t compensated.”

Common cause claims that since Koch Industries (along with every other corporation in the country) had its free speech rights confirmed in the Citizens United case, there was a conflict of interest.

John Hinderaker concludes:

“So, let’s add this up: Justices Thomas and Scalia accepted invitations to give speeches, presumably on legal topics, to a high-level audience of business people and other leaders. They weren’t paid for doing so. The events were sponsored by one of America’s most respected companies. That company, like every corporation in the United States, had its First Amendment rights confirmed in the Citizens United case. And Common Cause seriously claims that Scalia and Thomas violated ethics rules by failing to recuse themselves from that case?

“The claim is risible, but then, Eric Holder is the Attorney General, so perhaps anything is possible.”

Let’s hope this silliness does not go forward.  I will be willing to limit corporate spending in elections when union spending in elections is also limited.  Don’t hold your breath!

One of the things we sometimes forget when we look at the war in Afghanistan is how the women of the country were treated under the Taliban.  One of the projects our soldiers have taken on in that country is to restore some basic rights to the women of Afghanistan. 

On January 11, Stars and Stripes reported on a radio program based in Southern Afghanistan which will help bring literacy to the people of the country. 

The article reports:

“Afghanistan has the third lowest literacy rate in the world, with less than 30 percent of its population able to read or write. According to a 2007 United Nations report, in rural Helmand province, the rate is even lower: 8 percent for men and just 1 percent for women.

“Maj. Nina D’Amato, ISAF Regional Command — Southwest’s education officer and gender adviser, said Soviet and Taliban rulers intentionally crippled the education system.

“”You just don’t get literacy rates that low doing nothing,” she said. “You have to bring them down.””

This is one of the places where we can truly make a difference in Afghanistan.  One of the non-military people attempting to bring literacy to Afghanistan in recent years is Greg Mortenson, author of the book, THREE CUPS OF TEA.   He also focuses on teaching women and children how to read.

The article at Stars and Stripes reports:

“(Maj.) D’Amato said about 21,000 girls now are attending elementary schools. But they must be separated and taught by female teachers after the sixth grade. The Taliban twice burned down a girls’ school in Helmand last spring, she said — and twice it was rebuilt — and supplies and teachers, especially female teachers, are often scarce.

“But the main target for the radio program is women 25 to 40 years old, D’Amato said, who’ve never set foot in a school, or many other places without a male relative escort. “If they’re not going to come to us, we’ll go to them,” she said.

“Being literate could elevate the women’s status in a tribal culture that treats them as property, almost like livestock.

“”You become valuable: Now you have a skill,” she said. “You can make a greater contribution to the well-being of the family, you can understand things like public health issues. If you can read a land document, you become a lot more valuable than a donkey.”

“It’s unclear how effective the new program will be, but there’s nowhere to go but up.”

There are cultural gaps between the West and the East that we may never be able to bridge or understand, but helping people learn and giving them the ability to learn is a gift that will change lives.  I wish the military much success with this program.

Every now and then I truly feel like a dinosaur–a very old extinct species.  This article is not a comment on anyone’s morality–it is simply a reaction to changes that those of us over the age of fifty have seen in recent years.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that Berkeley, California, may set aside $20,000 a year to reimburse municipal employees for sex-reassignment surgery.  Berkeley is currently facing $252.8 million in deficits for pensions, disability and worker’s compensation.

While you contemplate that scenario, I would like to add a personal observation.  One of my daughters was an art teacher before she retired to be a full-time mom.  She currently volunteers in her local elementary school (in California) as an art teacher in her childrens’ classrooms.  Why is she volunteering?  Because the school budget has been cut to the point where elementary school children do not get art and music classes as a routine part of their curriculum.

I simply don’t understand the priorities on the people setting the budget for municipal governments.  Admittedly, my daughter is not in Berkeley, but what does Berkeley represent?  Is it an aberration or an indication of things to come?  I don’t know, but I feel like a dinosaur.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article entitled, “Can’t We All Just Get Along?”  The article refers to an article submitted to the Washington Post in response to a discussion topic on Muslim-Christian relations posted by Elizabeth Tenety of the Post.  The article was submitted by Willis Elliott, a contributor to the Washington Post’s “On Faith” Blog.  The Washington Post refused to publish the letter–it was published at Pajamas Media.

The discussion topic posted at the Washington Post asked how political and religious leaders in America should deal with the recent attacks on Christians in Iraq, Nigeria and Egypt and the Pakistani government’s enforcement of its blasphemy law, which threatens minorities.

Mr. Elliott points out in his response:

“Blasphemy (irreverent speech or action against a deity or religious person/belief/object) is currently in the news only when Muslims become violent, or threaten violence, when they feel offended: when we Christians feel offended, almost never do we become violent, and almost always we suffer the disrespect in silence.

“In the New Testament (and other early Christian literature), much is said about nonviolence, never is violence commanded or even suggested; it is forbidden. Not so, early Muslim literature. The contrast is to be expected: Jesus was anti-violent, Muhammad was violent (a military leader as well as a religious leader). …

“…Islam was, from its start, majority-minded; and Muslims don’t know how to behave when they are not in power: it enrages them, makes them thin-skinned to “blasphemy,” drives them to achieve power and impose sharia, even motivates some of them to martyr-suicide in killing any they consider enemies of Allah.”

These are horribly inconvenient facts, but they are, in fact, true.  There are moderate Muslims who do not believe in the call to turn all the world into dar es salam (a peaceful world under Allah), but they have been threatened into silence by the actions of the more radical elements of the religion.  Until the Muslim religion polices itself and gets rid of its radical element, there is no room for cooperation between Christianity and Islam.  

As the author of a blog called “Right Wing Granny,” I don’t support a lot of the policies and ideas of Joe Lieberman.  However, I think Senator Lieberman did his best to be true to his ideas and to represent the people who elected him.  I am truly sorry to see him planning not to run in 2012.

CNS News posted a story today on Senator Lieberman’s decision not to run for office in 2012.  Senator Lieberman caucused with the Democrats, but did not always vote the party line. He angered the Democrats on numerous occasions–he ran as in Independent in 2006 after losing a primary race for the Democrat candidacy. 

The article at CNS News lists some of the actions of Senator Lieberman the gained him respect from Republicans and dislike from Democrats:

“Top Democrats such as Obama and Sen. Christopher Dodd who had supported Lieberman in the 2006 primary instead backed Democratic nominee Ned Lamont in the fall general election. Lieberman was disappointed that some old friends weren’t loyal to him.

“In the years since, he aligned himself with Democrats in the Senate, who permitted him to chair a committee in return. Yet in 2008 he supported McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, who put the Connecticut lawmaker on his list of potential vice presidential running mates.

“Lieberman’s decision to speak at the 2008 GOP presidential nominating convention angered Democrats, and the speech he gave contrasting Obama to McCain angered them more.”

This is a man who has always tried to do what is in the best interests of America.  All of us will miss him in the Senate.

Yesterday Steven Hayward at the Ashbrook Center Blog posted an article about the recent comments by some news opinion people expressing a desire to go back to the 1980’s when politics was much more ‘civil.’

Chris Matthews, not known to be a bastion of civility, posted an article in the Washington Post “looking back with nostalgia on the wonderful comity between Tip O’Neill and Ronald Reagan.”  It seems as if Mr. Matthews managed to leave a few things out of his history lesson.  The article at Ashbrook Center Blog cites this quote from Tip O’Neill about Ronald Reagan:

“The evil is in the White House at the present time.  And that evil is a man who has no care and no concern for the working class of America and the future generations of America, and who likes to ride a horse. He’s cold.  He’s mean. He’s got ice water for blood.”

Maybe I’m a little oversensitive, but this doesn’t seem all that civil to me.  The article reminds us:

“As Reagan’s 100^th birthday approaches next month, don’t be taken in by all the liberals who now say what a wonderful guy he was or how much more civil things were then compared to that dreadful woman from the northern territories today.  Funny how liberals always seem to discern the virtues of conservatives only after they’re dead and gone.”

At the risk of thoroughly undermining the new political correctness trying to take over our polical dialogue, for people on the left side of the political spectrum, the only good conservative is a dead conservative or a conservative out of office.  Let’s not let those on the left rewrite the history of political debate in America.

Today’s Boston Business Journal posted a story online about Evergreen Solar.  Evergreen Solar is based in Marlborough, Massachusetts.  The company plans to cut 800 of its 925 Massachusetts jobs and close its factory at Devens, Massachusetts, by the end of March Sometimes the closing (or moving) of a factory isn’t noteworthy, but in this case the closing of the factory is only part of the story.

The state directly invested into the company as part of its program to encourage green energy.  The amount of investment has been reported as high as $58 million and as low as $30 million, depending on the source.  Economic development secretary Greg Bialecki has stated that the state hopes to recover about $13 million from the company.  Bialecki claims that the $58 million figure includes future benefits which were not actually paid.  The company says that it actually only owes $3 to $4 million since it ‘over-achieved’ on its job creation promises.

Did I mention why the plant is closing?  They will be moving their operation to China, where manufacturing costs are lower.  One thing we need to remember is that businesses are in business to make money.  If they are not making money, there is no reason for them to be in business.  If Massachusetts wants businesses to locate here, it needs to create a business environment that allows businesses to make a profit.

Holly Robichaud points out in her Lone Republican blog at the Boston Herald:

“The Evergreen situation shows why government shouldn’t be the decision-maker on the viability of businesses.  It further proves that the Democrat way does not work.  The philosophy of government knowing best is wrong. 

“For businesses to succeed in Massachusetts, we should not be handing out money, but rather creating a better business climate.  Our Governor should be looking at the cost of doing business here in the Commonwealth.  For example, we have the most generous benefits for unemployment insurance which is funded by the business community.  We are also number one in the costs for health insurance.”

Thank you, Holly, for wisdom.  I wish the State House and State Legislation in Massachusetts would listen.

National Review Online‘s Planet Gore Blog posted an article yesterday about the relationship between oil prices and economic growth. 

The article quotes this weeks “Fiscal Times:”

“A 2006 paper from the U.S. Energy Information Agency said, “most of the major economic downturns in the United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region since the 1970s have been preceded by sudden increases in crude oil prices.””

The article also points out that the economic collapse in 2008 was preceded by about six months of oil prices that were at or above $100 a barrel.

Also from the “Fiscal Times:”

“James Hamilton of UC San Diego produced a report in 2009 saying that higher oil prices in 2007-2008 impacted domestic spending and auto purchases to such an extent that “in the absence of those declines, it is unlikely that we would have characterized the period 2007 to 2008 as one of economic recession for the U.S.””

Why am I stating these rather obvious facts?  Well, the article also notes that President Obama has essentially shut down domestic oil production. 

The article reports:

“Last week, Greenwire reported that there were fewer new wells drilled for oil on public lands in 2010 than in any other year in the past decade, and that as many as two-thirds of the permits issued to the oil and gas industry for drilling on federal lands were unused.

“Kathleen Sgamma, government-affairs director for the Denver-based Western Energy Alliance, said the Obama administration’s regulations have discouraged new drilling in the West, where BLM controls some 250 million acres. “We were surprised,” Sgamma said, “to see just how much the additional regulatory burden has discouraged drilling in the West.””

We have a choice here–we can do what is necessary to allow our country to thrive economically or we can cripple our own industries in the name of an unproven theory.  If this Obama Administration would like to end the recession and see two-terms for President Obama (God help us!), opening up drilling inside America would be a giant step forward in that direction. 

Today’s Washington Examiner is reporting that Iran has blocked approximately 2,500 fuel trucks from delivering fuel to Afghanistan since late December.  Iran supplies about thirty percent of Afghanistan’s refined fuel, the rest, from Iraq and Turkmenistan, transits Iran. 

Teheran has stated that the blockade is part of an effort to slash domestic fuel subsidies in order to cut costs (Iran is being squeezed economically by international sanctions), and also expressed a fear that some of the fuel would be going to NATO forces operating in Afghanistan.  How the fuel is being used should not be their concern!  (Although Afghan leaders say that the fuel is for Afghan use–not NATO.)

When the blockade began, fuel prices rose from $900 a ton to about $1,500.  Iran has let some of the trucks through since late December, and prices have now dropped to about $1,350 a ton. 

Afghan businessmen have vowed to stop doing business with Iran until the blockade is stopped.  There is a very important reason for Americans to pay attention to this situation.  Iran controls a major part of the world’s oil.  Because America has refused to develop her own resources, we are subject to blackmail by Iran because of our dependence on their oil.  Until we have our own oil resources, we will not be able to halt their nuclear program or protest the human rights violations of their government.  Our President and Congressional leaders are doing America a great disservice by blocking drilling in America–both offshore and in Alaska.  We need to remember that at the ballot box.

A website called Emirates247 posted a story on Monday about using ‘human maps’ in Afghanistan. 

According to the article:

“Troops in the region and across Afghanistan are gathering photographs, fingerprints and employment details as well as canvassing opinions from local residents to find out what they want for the war-racked province.

“The goal is to strengthen relations between pro-government forces and the local population.”

Please follow the link above to see the entire article.  It gives some insight into what our troops are up against.  As I read the article, I though of Al Capone’s Chicago.  People lived in fear of the controlling, brutal gangs.  Life in Afghanistan for the average person must be something like that. 

The article reports:

“Mohammad Sahim, a 32-year-old farmer, stressed that he knows “nothing at all” about the Taliban. As for improvements he would like to see in the local area, he stresses “food, water and a hospital”.

“Staff Sergeant Alan Cable, who is asking the questions, said that such reticence about the Taliban is typical. “People usually say that they don’t know anything,” he explained.”

Until the Afghan people feel secure and safe and are willing to work with American forces, we are wasting everyone’s time.  I am moderately optimistic because General Petraeus is in charge, but it would be more optimistic if I felt that he were truly calling the shots.

If you listened to the news recently, you were told that the number of people who support the repeal of Obamacare is decreasing.  Note that you are being told this just as the House of Representatives is preparing to vote to repeal Obamacare.  Why is that?  It’s so that any wimpy lawmakers will think that supporting repeal might cost them at the ballot box in 2012.  Nevermind the fact that voting for Obamacare cost many lawmakers at the ballot box in 2010.

Well, when you look behind the numbers, what you are being told is not necessarily true.  John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday explaining how the poll taken on the repeal of Obamacare was skewed.  If you follow the link above to the article, you will see three charts showing how the poll was taken.  The difference in the numbers is whether the people asked the question were likely voters or not.  When likely voters were asked (the Rasmussen Poll) whether or not they supported the repeal of Obamacare, fifty-five percent supported repeal.  The number of likely voters supporting repeal has been constantly between fifty-three and sixty percent since the end of August.

On January 14, Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article about the ongoing legal battles between the Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TiZA) K-8 public charter school in suburban St. Paul and the ACLU Minnesota.  I am generally not a supporter of the ACLU either on a state or federal level, but in this case they are right to bring this lawsuit.  Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy K-8 public charter school appears to be an Islamic school operating illegally at taxpayer expense. 

The article states:

“Among other things, school executive director Asad Zaman is an imam and almost all of its students are Muslim. As a charter school it was originally sponsored by Islamic Relief USA. The school is housed in a building that was owned by the Muslim American Society of Minnesota. The study of Arabic is required at the school. The Arabic comes in handy for the Koranic studies that follow the regular school day.”

The Minnesota ACLU brought a lawsuit challenging the legality of the school’s operation on public funds; the lawsuit is pending in federal court in Minnesota.  When Church Samuelson, ACLU executive director of the ACLU Minnesota, made the statement,  “The issue with TiZA, frankly, was the incredible commingling of church and state. It’s a theocratic school. It is as plain as the substantial nose on my face,”  TiZA claimed that the ACLU had defamed the school.  The school asserted several counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota for amounts in excess of $100,000 (i.e., an unlimited amount). 

The article further reports:

“The ACLU Minnesota’s lawsuit against TiZA is predicated on the establishment clause of the First Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I was quite sure that there was another clause of the First Amendment that applied to TiZA’s counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota, but even the common law of defamation provides that truth is a defense.

“In the event, Minnesota federal district Judge Donovan Frank summarily dismissed TiZA’s counterclaims. In an order issued in late 2009, Judge Frank held that, as a public school, TiZA could not assert a claim for defamation.”

There is more to this story.  Through the discovery process as the litigation has gone forward, the Minnesota Department of Education discovered that TiZA has made multiple misrepresentations to the Department.

The article concludes:

“(Star Tribune metro columnist Katherine)Kersten concluded her most recent column on TiZA with this pointed observation: “Every time we read about this lawsuit, we have to pinch ourselves and say: We’re talking about a public, taxpayer-funded school.” The pending lawsuit is important, and not just for the result to which it might give rise when it is concluded. Along the way it is producing revelations that deserve attention regardless of the result.”

If you follow some of the recent court cases and lawsuits involving Muslims, you realize that the actions of TiZA follow a pattern.  When confronted with the truth of what they were doing, they charged defamation.  One of the methods of Islamists who are radical is to use our judicial system against us.  Even if they cannot win a case, they can sufficiently drain the resources of their adversaries and discourage other actions against their Muslim agenda.  There are many peace-loving Muslims who are as offended by these actions as are most Americans.  We need them to speak up in opposition to the sort of behavior.

Obamacare was a 2,000+ page bill passed in the dead of night without anyone having read it.  We are just now finding out exactly what is in it.  The more I learn, the more I want the bill repealed.  I am not opposed to healthcare reform–I think we need it.  I am opposed to a government takeover of healthcare disguised as reform.  There are three basic things that could be done to improve health insurance for all Americans without a government takeover of healthcare.  They are very simple–tort reform, portability of health insurance across state lines, and tax credits for people buying health insurance.  I know that one of the concerns in passing healthcare reform was the people who could not afford health insurance.  That is a valid concern.  We also need to remember that there are many young people who simply do not see the need for health insurance.  They make up a large portion of the uninsured.  As far as not being able to afford health insurance, I posted an article (RightWingGranny.com) on December 10th of last year showing the impact of government tax policies and assistance policies on people at various income levels.  Please review the chart at the above link before you say too much about people who can’t afford health insurance.  I am sure we can find a way to give them a tax credit to help them.

Anyway, the purpose of the above rant is to direct you to the website of Americans For Tax Reform.  On Friday they posted a list of all the tax increases written into Obamacare.  We now have passed the bill and found out what was in it, and it isn’t good.  Please follow the link to see the detailed list. 

A few of the tax increases:

Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans

Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax

Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka“Special Needs Kids Tax”

Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers

Tax on Indoor Tanning Services

Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike

Tax on Innovator Drug Companies

Tax on Health Insurers

You get the picture.  Please follow the link to the Americans For Tax Reform website to learn more.  Repeal is needed.  Repeal and replace is a really good idea.

Yesterday Newsbusters posted a story about a segment to be aired on ABC’s “This Week” today.  The segment was about a town hall meeting held as part of the healing process after the shootings in Tucson last Saturday. 

The news segment that was aired left out a rather significant item.  The article reports:

“As NewsBusters previously reported, a survivor of last week’s Tucson shootings issed a death threat to a Tea Party member Saturday in the middle of a taping for a town hall meeting to be aired on ABC’s “This Week.”

“For some reason, ABC World News Saturday in its report about the gathering chose to omit the seriousness of the threat and that it was made to a Tea Partier.”

The article at NewsBusters gives videos and a full account of what actually happened.  It was very misleading for ABC to leave out the fact that there was a threat made to a Tea Partier.  All of us need to realize that volatile rhetoric happens on both sides of the political spectrum.  We also need to realize that to disagree with someone’s political ideas is not hate speech.  There need to be two sides in order to have meaningful debate.

Please follow the above link to read the entire story.

The American Thinker posted a short article on its website today about the t-shirts given out at the memorial service for the people killed in the shooting in Arizona last Saturday.  The President’s speech was perfect for the event–it had exactly the tone it needed and was very well done, but the t-shirts really bothered me.

The article reports:

“The “Together We Thrive” T-shirts that starred at Wednesday’s Arizona `Memorial’ originated from Organizing for America (here), a sad fact unearthed by The Drumbeat of Liberty and the Preservation of Freedom editor and Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Robert Rohlfing.

(snip)

“the mainstream media reported that the “Together We Thrive: Tucson & America” T-shirt given to mourners as they entered McKate Center was the idea of University of Arizona brass, not the Obama administration.

Yet the “Together We Thrive” slogan dates back to a post to Obama’s own Organizing for America in a Feb. 11, 2008 post by self-described “globalist” John Berry IV.

“More than passing strange that the Obama campaign message of civility was the same on Feb. 11, 2008 as it was in his Wednesday Memorial speech, and the same one, too carried by the mainstream media in coverage of the Memorial.”

What were they thinking?

Tomorrow’s edition of the New Zealand Herald features a story about the results of a very interesting poll. 

According to the article:

“The poll, published this week, asked 1000 Arab residents of East Jerusalem if they would prefer becoming citizens of a Palestinian state or of Israel. Thirty five per cent chose Israel. Thirty per cent chose Palestine.”

The article also points out that when the wall was being built to protect Israel from terrorist attacks, many Palestinians made sure they lived on the Israeli side of the wall–living conditions were better, employment opportunities were better, etc.

The article concludes:

“The results do not negate the authenticity of the Palestinians’ desire for a state of their own, something that history has denied them until now. The polls suggest, however, that in real life jobs and political stability trump the fanfare of history.”

Among other things, I think it is very interesting that the author of this article points out that “history has denied them (the Palestinians, a state of their own) until now.”  Doesn’t that totally undermine their supposed justification for wanting to be a state–that it was their land?

As prices at the grocery store begin to climb, Americans need to know some of the causes of the increase.  One cause is the increasing cost of gasoline.  That increase can be traced to OPEC’s goal of $100 a barrel oil and America’s unwillingness to develop its own energy resources.  The other reason for the increase of cost at the grocery store is what has happened to the Central Valley in California.  The water which irrigates the Central Valley has been turned off the protect a small, inedible fish called the delta smelt.  Hot Air posted a video yesterday explaining the consequences of government actions.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

“The crisis in the Central Valley comes directly from the application of the Endangered Species Act to the Delta smelt, one of a number of bait fish species indigenous to the area.  The order by a federal judge relying on that law cut off irrigation to a massive area of arable land and created a vast wasteland out of a farming bonanza, all to protect one species of inedible fish.  Congress needs to curtail the ESA and get the water turned back on in the valley.”

I drove through the Central Valley last summer.  There was signs everywhere saying, “Stop the Pelosi, Reid Dust Bowl.”  The people who live there are suffering economically due to government policies.  It’s time the power of the government to put honest people out of business was curtailed.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about Vice-President Joe Biden’s comments regarding the payroll tax cuts.  The Vice-President has stated that “Payroll tax cut will create jobs.”   Mr. Hinderaker points out some of the conclusions we can draw from that statement.  If the payroll tax cut will create jobs, what impact was the tax having on unemployment before it was cut and what impact will restoring it in two years have?  If the tax was a drag on the economy before it was cut, won’t it be a drag on the economy when it is restored?  Hmmmm.

The article reports:

“But wait, there’s more! This wonderful tax cut, presumably unlike bad Republican tax cuts, won’t increase the deficit at all! That’s because we’re going to restore the tax in two years, see….and in the meantime, see, Uncle will just apply general revenues to the Social Security Trust Fund [sic] so Bubba doesn’t have to worry about that either! I am a bit confused, though, Joe….when we restore the payroll tax cut we won’t actually be recovering the foregone payroll tax revenue from the two year period of the cut, will we? And we’re not increasing other taxes — we’re preserving all of the Bush tax cuts!! — or reducing spending…..so either there is a large revenue hole for the two year period and perforce an increase in the deficit….OR we will claw back the cut in which case what possible economic stimulus effect will there be if Bubba has to pay back the payroll tax holiday on top of the restored payroll tax going forward ? Help me out here, Joe…..”

I’m still trying to figure out why people who have been screaming that Social Security is going broke are willing to take more money away from it.  Could it be that in the future they will blame the coming financial woes of Social Security on this tax cut to avoid admitting that they have been stealing money from Social Security funds since the 1960’s?

The article comments on Social Security:

“And I love the sly reference to “[c]critics [who] have been spreading misinformation that the payroll tax cut will threaten the solvency of Social Security”. And who would those “critics” be? The left! Democrats! The Obama administration’s putative supporters, that’s who! And, Joe, thanks for spreading the disinformation about the “general revenues” going “into” the Trust Fund [sic], too. But, admittedly, here you do have a point–“the payroll tax cut will have no financial impact on Social Security”–but that’s because, as I am sure you know, Joe, the whole funding side of Social Security is a sham anyway! There is no “Trust Fund” in any meaningful sense and Social Security is more-or-less bankrupt and insolvent on an actuarial basis already, so it couldn’t be affected.”

With the advent of the Tea Party, we have begun to get some of the influence of special interest groups out of Congress.  It will take at least two more elections to finish the process.  At that point, the American people may have the opportunity to get their country back!

On December 26, 2010, MSNBC reported:

“The global economy can withstand an oil price of $100 a barrel, Kuwait’s oil minister said on Saturday, as other exporters indicated OPEC may decide against increasing output through 2011 as the market was well supplied.”

How long have we been debating drilling in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?  Snopes.com has some great pictures and information on exactly what would be involved in ANWR drilling and the consequences.  The people who have blocked the development of America’s own natural resources should be held accountable.  They should be reminded at the ballot box of the damage they have caused to America’s national security and economy.

The article further reports:

“Egyptian Oil Minister Sameh Fahmy said the current increase in oil prices was the result of higher demand on heating fuel because of the cold weather in Europe.

“United Arab Emirates Oil Minister Mohammed al-Hamli said crude oil inventories are “quite high. It’s the highest over the five years average… The market is well supplied.””

It is very apparent that if America intends to maintain its position as a world power, we need to become self sufficient in energy.  We need to elect leaders who understand this–evidently many of our current leaders are fine with $5 a gallon gasoline.  Most Americans are not.

NBCBayArea.com posted this picture found on the wall on a San Francisco Street.  I don’t see how the left can talk about civility when you look at the way they treat Sarah Palin and the way they treated George Bush.  The inflammatory rhetoric is not only on the right–it is on both sides, and each side need to police its speakers and its actors.