There is a website called A Time To Betray that is run by Reza Kahlili (a pseudonym for a CIA operative formerly in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard).  He is no longer in Iran, but runs a website and reports on events related to Iran and terrorism. 

Today A Time To Betray posted a story about Ahmad Vahidi, the Iranian Defense Minister, who is scheduled to visit Baghdad in the near future.

According to the article:

“A high-ranking delegation, including military and defense officials, will accompany Vahidi during the visit. The Iranian delegation will meet with Iraqi officials to discuss the regional developments and boost military and defense cooperation.”

Countries in the Middle East have learned that it is in their best interest to align themselves with a strong horse rather than a weak one.  Unfortunately when America has a weak or uncertain President, Middle Eastern countries look for support elsewhere.  Unfortunately, we will see much more of this for the next year and a half. 

The article further reports:

“Mr. Vahidi is on the Interpol’s most wanted for the bombing of the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires in 1994, which killed 85 and injured hundreds. As the defense minister, Mr. Vahidi is directly responsible for the Iranian nuclear bomb and missile programs, and is also in charge of the proliferation of arms to Syria, Venezuela, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Taliban, and North African countries.

“The Iranian leaders will see Mr. Vahidi’s trip to Iraq as a victory over America, as it was his very policies that armed the Iraqi Shiite militias meant to harm and bring down U.S. forces in Iraq.”

I hope our leaders are paying attention.  This is not a positive development.

Today’s American Thinker posted an article on the Boston Globe’s recent attack on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour. 

The American Thinker article reports:

“The Boston Globe exhibited a sample hatchet job on Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour on its front page, titled “Amid strained clinics, foe assails ‘ObamaCare.'” The story– less a news story than an unpaid political ad for Obama and ObamaCare — portrays Barbour as heartless and “out of touch with low-income people.””

As usual, the facts weren’t really related to the story.  The Globe tells the story of a clinic in a strip mall that services many of Mississippi’s poor. 

The writer of the article points out:

“My primary care physician is at one of the best hospitals in the world. In Massachusetts we have a form of guaranteed health insurance comparable to the ObamaCare that Barbour is assailing. My annual physical this year cost $1,372, and after my $15,048 annual insurance policy paid its share, my out of pocket cost was $458. My health care is excellent, but is this level of excellence a basic human right that we must guarantee to every citizen through federal mandate? Isn’t a nurse practitioner or a doctor in a strip mall clinic capable of handling most primary care medicine — our multitude of aches, pains, coughs, and sore throats?

 

“Haley Barbour thinks so, and he has led the lawsuit by twenty-six states against ObamaCare. He refuses to accept federal funding because of the costly strings attached. The Globe writer seems confused by the whole concept. As he writes, “health care advocates and physicians…are especially dismayed because they view the law as a great financial deal for the state.””

The best part of the article is the Haley Barbour quote at the end:

“Most of the health disparities in Mississippi are not because of the inability to get access or afford health care…They are because of diet, alcohol, because of drugs, the very high incidence of illegitimacy that leads to high incidence of low-birth weight children. I grew up in a society where if it wasn’t fried you were asking, “Why not?””

This man may have serious potential as a presidential candidate–he is straight forward and has a wonderful sense of humor.

Fox News reported yesterday that for the first time since the Great Depression, U. S. households are getting more from the government than they are paying in taxes. 

Including expanded unemployment benefits, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and stimulus payments, households received $2.3 trillion in some kind of government support in 2010. 

The article reports:

“…that’s more than the $2.2 trillion households paid in taxes, an amount that has slumped largely due to the recession, according to an analysis by the Fiscal Times.”

“…Also, an estimated 59% of the 308.7 million Americans in this country get at least one federal benefit, according to the Census Bureau, based on 2009 data. An estimated 46.5 million get Social Security; 42.6 million get Medicare; 42.4 million get Medicaid; 36.1 million get food stamps; 12.4 million get housing subsidies; and 3.2 million get Veterans’ benefits.” 

These are not sustainable numbers. 

The article further reports:

“The Fiscal Times reports that “the only other time government income support exceeded taxes paid was from 1931 to 1936.” The Times notes that “government transfers of income to households started to overtake personal taxes at the start of 2008, and the gap has been widening.”

“The difference between what households received and what they paid in taxes is about $125 billion, equal to a little more than “three times the amount Republicans and Democrats agreed to cut from government spending through Sept. 30,” the Fiscal Times said. Typically, the gap between government transfers and taxes runs the other way, the Times reports.

“”In normal times the household sector gives about eight percentage points more of its income in taxes than it receives in direct transfers,” the Times quotes J.P. Morgan economist Michael Feroli as saying, adding that a return to normalcy, or this eight-percentage-point spread, is equal to about $1.2 trillion in income.”

It’s time to get back to letting the private sector grow and create jobs, rather than expecting the government to create jobs by continued growth.  Smaller government means more prosperity for everyone.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner posted a story about President Obama’s energy policy.  The article quoted the President as saying,   “There is no magic formula to driving gas prices down.”   That’s a very interesting statement.  I would agree that there is no instant formula to drive gasoline prices down, but there is a long term policy that would result in lower prices fairly quickly.  It’s not magic–it’s just common sense.

The article states:

“It involves either persuading Obama to reverse his opposition to significant expansion of domestic energy production, or replacing him in the Oval Office in November 2012.”

I think that pretty much sums it up! 

The article cites President Obama’s handling of the Gulf oil spill.  Initially, he claimed that scientists had approved his blanket moratorium on drilling after the oil spill.  That claim was later proved to be false.  The administration that defied a federal court by replacing the original moratorium after it was struck down with an essentially identical moratoriam.  The administration was found to be in contempt of court.  Meanwhile American offshore oil production is down 13 percent.  Because of the ban on deep-water drilling and the slowdown in approving drilling applications, the Wall Street Journal reports that America is losing about 375,000 barrels of oil a day of production.  This also represents a loss of $40 million a day of oil revenue. 

The article concludes:

“At today’s prices, the Obama-induced loss of production represents $40 million per day in lost oil revenue. Spread over a full year, that comes to $14.6 billion that could be supporting thousands of sustainable, good-paying American jobs at no cost to the taxpayer. That is a much better deal than Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, which appears to have added far more to the national debt than it ever will to national employment. It seems clear that ideological and not economic considerations are at work in this administration’s energy policy. The same politician who once said that energy prices would “necessarily skyrocket” under his plan seems less intent on job creation or energy security than he is on putting oil producers in a regulatory straitjacket and browbeating Americans into accepting the lower standard of living that inevitably results from energy scarcity.”

I sure hope the Republicans have a good candidate in 2012.   

Yesterday’s Daily Caller posted an article about the cost to every American of Washington’s regulations on businesses and state and local governments.  Wayne Crews, vice president for policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute studied this and found a report stating that regulation cost $1.75 trillion in 2008.

Mr. Crews points out in his report that companies pass the cost of complying with complex regulations on to the consumer.  He also points out that Washington can raise money through regulation without having to pass unpopular tax bills.

The article in the Daily Caller points out some of the current overregulation:

• In 2010, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules.

• While agencies issued 3,573 final rules, Congress passed and the president signed into law a comparatively “few” 217 bills. Considerable lawmaking power is delegated to unelected bureaucrats at agencies, an abuse addressed recently in proposals such as the REINS Act.

• Proposed rules in the Federal Register have surged from 2,044 in 2009 to 2,439 in 2010, a jump of 19.3 percent.

• Of the 4,225 rules now in the regulatory pipeline, 224 are “economically significant” meaning they wield at least $100 million in economic impact–this is an increase of 22 percent over 2009’s 184 rules.

• Given 2010’s government spending (outlays) of $3.456 trillion, the regulatory “hidden tax” of $1.75 trillion stands at an unprecedented 50.7 percent of the level of federal spending itself.

• Regulatory costs exceed all 2008 corporate pretax profits of $1.463 trillion.

• Regulatory costs dwarf corporate income taxes of $157 billion.

• Regulatory costs tower over the estimated 2010 individual income taxes of $936 billion by 87 percent–nearly double the level.

• Regulatory costs of $1.75 trillion absorb 11.9 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP), estimated at $14.649 trillion in 2010.

• Combining regulatory costs with federal FY 2010 outlays of $3.456 trillion reveals a federal government whose share of the entire economy now reaches 35.5 percent.

Keep in mind that the bigger percentage the government is of the economy, the smaller the private sector.

The last time a small oil refinery was built in the United States was 1993 in Valdez, Alaska.  The last time a large oil refinery was built in the United States was 1976.  These figures come from the National Petrochemical & Refiners Association (NPRA).  The NPRA also reports that 95 percent of the gasoline purchased by U.S. consumers is refined inside the United States.  Do you think our demand for gasoline might have increased since 1976 or 1993?  Don’t assume that Washington is paying attention.

On Monday CNS News reported that U.S. Export-Import Bank, an independent agency of the federal government, is now to loan $2.84-billion for a massive project to expand and upgrade an oil refinery–in Cartagena, Colombia.  What about here at home?  I suspect that the problem is that the environmental regulations concerning refineries have gotten so out of hand in recent years; it probably does not pay to attempt to build a refinery in the United States.

The article reports:

“In its 2009 annual report, Ecopetrol says “we became 100% owners of Reficar, the company in charge of carrying out the Cartagena Refinery modernization plan.”

“In its ordinary procedure for financing projects of this magnitude, the board of the Export-Import Bank votes its preliminary approval, notifies Congress of that preliminary approval, then waits five weeks before voting final approval of the deal. This allows members of Congress to comment on the planned financing project.

“”The Reficar transaction is subject to congressional notification, with a final vote anticipated approximately 35 days following the expiration of the notification period,” says the bank’s press release on the loan.

“When asked if Congress can veto the loan, Ex-Im Spokesman Cogan said, “No.””

Whatever happened to the idea of developing America’s refining industry?  Are we destined to keep spending money overseas to become more dependent on countries which in the long run may not actually be our friends?  Could we please have some common sense in Washington?

Townhall.com posted an article by Katie Pavlich about some of the protesters at the Phoenix Tea Party.  The protesters tried to shout down State Senator Russell Pearce as he noted the success of SB 1070 (the law that set up Arizona’s current immigration policies). 

The article states:

“Pearce cited a rapid decrease in prison inmate population, $500 million in education savings and higher employment among legal Arizona residents since SB 1070 was implemented just a year ago, proving illegal immigration should be looked at as an economic issue in addition to a national security issue.”

The video of the protesters is at the link above.  The problem for the protesters is that the facts speak for themselves.  Washington D. C., are you listening?

CNS News posted an article yesterday stating that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has “already has reviewed provisions in the Affordable Care Act that purport to bring down health care spending – what Obama calls “bending the cost curve” – and found little evidence they will bear fruit.”

The article reports:

“CBO also reviewed the proposal cited by Obama as the primary vehicle for saving “well over $1 trillion” — the Independent Payment Advisory Board – and found that it would save only about $2 billion between 2010 and 2019.

“”CBO estimates that enacting the proposal, as drafted, would yield savings of $2 billion over the 2010-2019 period (with all of the savings realized in fiscal years 2016 through 2019),” CBO said in a July 2009 letter.

“The Independent Payment Advisory Board – under Obama’s proposal – would recommend ways to save money by making health care delivery more efficient. Medicare would incorporate these changes and use its large market presence to force those changes on the broader health care market.

“CBO, however, cast doubt on the advisory board’s ability to ever actually do this, saying that because the plan lacked specific details for reducing costs, there was little evidence the board would ever save anyone any money.

“”In CBO’s judgment, the probability is high that no savings would be realized…but there is also a chance that substantial savings might be realized,” CBO’s 2009 letter stated.”

Unless we begin to control government spending, America will go bankrupt.  Enacting a multibillion dollar new healthcare entitlement at this time is not a wise move.  One of the most effective ways Congress can cut the budget is to end Obamacare and start medical reform from scratch.  Texas has done wonders with tort reform, Congress should follow their example.

Yesterday Big Government posted a story about a speech made in Lansing, Michigan, by AFSCME president Herb Sanders.  

According to the article, Mr. Sanders stated:

“If necessary, we will use the valuable public service jobs that we perform as a weapon and shut this state down.”

Wow!  Have they forgetten the concept of ‘public servants?’  The video posted in the article shows Mr. Sanders giving the speech. 

The article further reports:

“There needs to be a real, straightforward way to deal with such behavior.  One of the signs that I laughed at most in Madison was “I am irreplaceable.”

“No, you’re not.  Everyone is replaceable.  Everyone can become a liability when their perceived value outweighs reality.

“The fact is, Herb Sanders’ members are very replaceable and the state of Michigan, and every other state with a union-held gun to its head, should have ways to replace them – quickly.”

Any organization that firmly believes it is irreplaceable needs to be replaced.  The battle between unions and states is not about wages or benefits–it’s about power.  The unions have been a major contributor to liberal candidates for a long time.  As the unions see their membership continue to shrink, they are concerned that their influence will be waning in the very near future.  There is also the matter of unfunded retirement benefits for members.  Unless the unions continue to grow, many benefit promises will not be met.  It will be interesting to see where the battle between the unions and the states is in about two years.

Yesterday’s Daily Caller posted a story about Sen. Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat who chairs the Senate Finance Committee.  Senator Baucus added a ‘rider’ to the recently passed spending bill.  The rider delists wolves from an endangered species list in some states.  The National Fish and Wildlife Service has decided to delist wolves in states where there numbers have recovered to robust populations.  Environmentalists immediately sued (and won) in federal court, blocking the plan.  Congress responsed by reinstating the plan of the National Fish and Wildlife Service and delisting the wolves.. 

Senator Baucus sent out an email stating the logical reasons for taking wolves off the endangered species list.  There is a tremendous amount of common sense involved in letting each state handle its wildlife according to the needs and situation in that state. 

It is interesting to note that the all of the riders curtailing new environmental regulations, the rider delisting wolves was the only one that made it into the final deal.

Delisting the wolves from the endangered species list is a move that makes sense for farmers, ranchers, and hunters who live in the states involved.   

Today, The Hayride, a Louisiana news website, posted an article about a visit to Brandon, Mississippi, by the Westboro Baptist Church.  The Westboro Baptist Church is the group that protests soldiers funerals saying horrible things it claims to be Christian.  Like all good lies, some of what they say has some truth in it and does agree with the Bible, but their attitude and presentation do not.  Generally speaking, they are a miserable group of people who show up and get publicity at the expense of a grieving family. 

Anyway, they were not successful in protesting the funeral of USMC Staff Sgt. Jason Rogers, who was killed in action in Afghanistan April 7.  The town was ready for them. 

The Hayride reports:

“A couple of days before, one of them (Westboro protestors) ran his mouth at a Brandon gas station and got his arse waxed. Police were called and the beaten man could not give much of a description of who beat him. When they canvassed the station and spoke to the large crowd that had gathered around, no one seemed to remember anything about what had happened.

“Rankin County handled this thing perfectly. There were many things that were put into place that most will never know about and at great expense to the county.

“Most of the morons never made it out of their hotel parking lot. It seems that certain Rankin county pickup trucks were parked directly behind any car that had Kansas plates in the hotel parking lot and the drivers mysteriously disappeared until after the funeral was over. Police were called but their wrecker service was running behind and it was going to be a few hours before they could tow the trucks so the Kansas plated cars could get out.

“A few made it to the funeral but were ushered away to be questioned about a crime they might have possibly been involved in. Turns out, after a few hours of questioning, that they were not involved and they were allowed to go on about their business.”

I am sure the Westboro Baptist Church will file all sorts of lawsuits about this, but somehow I don’t think they will be successful.  I’m not sure I approve of mob rule, but it this case it was definitely effective.

According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, Texas Democrats have asked retired Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez to run for the Senate in Texas.  Who is Lt. Gen. Sanchez?   He was in charge of the military theatre that included Abu Ghraib during the time prisoners were mistreated there.  Yes, I said mistreated.  Although what went on there was totally inappropriate, I don’t think it rises to the level of torture.  Cutting innocent reporter’s heads off and kidnapping people is torture.  Abu Ghraib was an example of inexplicable stupidity and cruelty.  At the time, however, the Democrats called for the removal of everyone in the chain of command up to Donald Rumsfeld.  Now they want to run a member of that chain of command for Senate.  My how times change.

Thinkprogress.org reported on June 1, 2009:

“Sanchez described the interrogation program as “a personal failure on the part of many.” Indeed, Sanchez himself wrote and signed a 2003 memo that included specific interrogation tactics approved for use despite noting that they may violate the Geneva Conventions. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sanchez denied signing off on these interrogation methods.”

It will be interesting to see what Texas voters do with this candidate.

What does it cost you every year to file your income taxes?  That’s a questions I hadn’t really considered until I read Arthur Laffer’s article in the Wall Street Journal today.  Arthur Laffer is the originator of the “Laffer Curve” which shows that tax revenue actually goes up when tax rates go down.  Just to remind you of how that has worked historically, the house.gov website posted a report by the Joint Economic Committee that stated:

“… individual income tax revenues rose from $244 billion in 1980 to $446 billion in 1989.”

That’s the Laffer Curve in action showing what happened after Ronald Reagan cut taxes.  Unfortunately, Congress saw the increased revenue as license to spend wildly.

Mr. Laffer’s article in today’s journal is about the cost to Americans of filing taxes.  He points out that for every $1 Americans pay in taxes, there is a 30 cent mark-up which includes the costs of their own time spent filing and complying with the tax code; plus the tax collection costs of the IRS; plus the tax compliance outlays that individuals and businesses pay to help them file their taxes.  These costs amount to $431 billion annually.

The article points out:

“David Keating of the National Taxpayers Union provides a useful perspective on how big the tax compliance industry is. According to his research, as of 2009 the income-tax industry employed “more workers than are employed at the five biggest employers among Fortune 500 companies–more than all the workers at Wal-Mart Stores, United Parcel Service, McDonald’s, International Business Machines, and Citigroup combined.” Without diminishing in any way the professionalism of tax attorneys, accountants and financial planners, all of these efforts produce nothing other than, well, tax compliance.”

The IRS tax code is 3.8 million words–over 11,000 single-spaced typed pages.  Mr. Laffer supports a flat tax rate.  I am not sure exactly what the right answer is, but I know the current system is much more complex than it needs to be.  It’s time to put in a flat rate so that everyone in America is able to do their own taxes and all Americans are taxed, thus having ‘skin in the game.’

On Saturday my local paper, The Attleboro Sun Chronicle, posted a story on the Tax Day Rally (Tea Party Rally) held in Boston on Friday.  The Headline of the story was “Tax Day Rally Grows Heated.”  The story then goes on to report that the tea party activiests and the union members from around the state clashed during the rally.  At times the police had to step in between members of the two groups.  All of that is probably true, but they left out another part of the story.

It was a Tea Party rally–they organized it, set up the speakers, the program, etc.  The union members were there as protesters, which is perfectly legal, but their manners were deplorable.  Michael Graham, a Boston talk radio host, attended and spoke at the rally.  He filed a report on his website, michaelgraham.com.

Mr. Graham reports:

“What kind of jerks scream political insults and try to shout down a pastor while he’s praying?

“That would be representatives of Massachusetts’ fine government-sector unions.

“Watch this video from Friday’s Tea Party event Boston Common.  What you’ll see is a gaggle of union goons who push their way to the front, use banners and signs to block the stage and fire up their megaphones.

“The Tea Party organizers paid the costs of getting a permit, providing the required equipment, etc. The government goons and loony lefties didn’t bother.  They didn’t have to. They just showed up and started screaming.

“The screamed during my welcome to the crowd. That was annoying and rude, but that’s to be expected.

“But when I introduced a pastor to deliver the invocation–and repeatedly told the government goons that we were about to pray–even I was taken aback when they tried to shout down the prayer.” 

You can watch the video mentioned by following the link to Michael Graham’s website.  Somehow this lack of manners on the part of the union members was not noted in any of the stories in any of the newspapers.

Remember what happened in Greece when the government benefits were cut.  Nothing has been cut–we are simply discussing the possibility.  Are we in danger of becoming Greece?

Today’s UK Telegraph posted a story about Colin Atkinson, 64, from Wakefield, England, who has been called to a disciplinary hearing at the publicly funded Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), where he has worked for the past fifteen years.  His offense–displaying a palm cross in the window of his company van. 

The article reports:

“The organisation claims the cross may cause offence but says it strongly promotes “inclusive” policies and allows employees to wear religious symbols at work.”

The managers of the organization will hold a full disciplinary hearing in May.  The complaint is based on the fact that the equality and diversity manager of the company (yes, you read that right) believes that the cross “gives the impression that WDH is a Christian organisation”. 

There is an argument that can be made here that because the cross is in the window of his van and not on his person, there might be a problem.  However, that argument looks a little silly when you hear that the company “has provided stalls at gay pride events, held “diversity days” for travellers, and has allowed other staff to display photographs of Che Guevera, the revolutionary leader, in their office.”

It does seem as if there is a double standard here. 

Obviously there are many reasons I don’t trust the mainstream media, but here is the latest example.  Yesterday BigJournalism posted a story about some pictures CBS News showed that supposedly were from a Tea Party rally in Wisconsin on April 15 during which Sarah Palin spoke.

This is the commentary that goes with the pictures:

“MADISON, Wis. – After weeks of relative quiet following the bruising battle over an anti-union collective bargaining bill, the state Capitol was again the scene of protests and counter-protests.

Hundreds of pro-union labor supporters are surrounding smaller groups of conservative Tea Party members attending a rally featuring former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin.

Speaking at the tax day rally outside the Wisconsin Capitol, Palin called the crowd in Madison courageous for having stood up to “death threats and thug tactics” of those who opposed Gov. Scott Walker’s collective bargaining bill.”

Nothing surprising there, but if you follow the above link and look closely at the picture, you will notice a pro-union supporter holding a sign urging people to vote in the April 6 election.  You have a choice–is the person holding the sign confused or did CBS post a picture from a previous rally and claim it was from the Tea Party rally?  Somehow I suspect the latter.

Big Government notes:

“They put “death threats and thug tactics” in quotes. Of course they would. This is a network that helped perpetuate the ‘Blame Palin’ narrative in the wake of the Tucson tragedy.

“CBS doesn’t need to use quotations to question the validity of the death threats on which they refused to report. We reported on it for them at Big Journalism. I suggest CBS remove the quotes.

“CBS also doesn’t need to Ratherize edit past rally footage of union protesters with footage of Palin speaking to promote the narrative that the tea party was outnumbered.”

CBS, if you are going to pull a scam, at least do it intelligently!

On Friday,, Big Government.com posted an article about the dangers to American democracy inherent in the fact that currently 47 percent of American households pay no income tax.  In 2006, 40 percent of households paid not income tax. 

The article points out:

“By 2012 this could be the first election in which the majority of voters will be able to vote themselves more government largess paid for by a minority of taxpayers. We may soon have to re-jigger the American Revolution’s familiar rallying cry into: “Representation Without Taxation!””

This is a true example of more people climbing into the wagon and fewer people being willing to pull the wagon. 

The article then goes on to cite some of the current figures on who pays taxes:

“Statistics vary slightly but it can be argued that the top five percent of US households pay 60% of federal income tax. Ten percent account for over 75%. Another two-fifths make up the rest. And half are exempt. And yet…twenty percent of US households get 75% of their income from the federal government. Another one-fifth receives 40% of their financial support from Uncle Sam. Think about what this means in terms of fiscal responsibility down the road. How receptive to cutting taxes which they do not pay, or cutting government spending, from which they benefit, is a majority voting block going to be in the future? Indeed, what does this say about our prospects for economic growth or curbing the size and scope of an ever growing government colossus in the face of a crushing $20 trillion deficit looming on the horizon?”

It’s becoming very obvious that the answer to our financial problems is not to raise taxes on the rich, but to begin collecting taxes from the poor! 

On Friday, Investors.com reported that the vote to defund Obamacare that was part of the 2011 budget deal took place in the Senate. 

According to the article:

“…all 53 Democrats, including 23 up for re-election in 2012, voted to preserve funding for their version of socialized medicine. All 47 Republicans voted no. Game on.”

Obviously the results of the vote are not surprising, but there are some interesting things going on concerning the vote.  There are some Democrats up for reelection in 2012 that this vote will be a problem for.  Freshman Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia was elected in a special election in 2010.  During the campaign he stated that he was open to repealing ObamaCare.  He voted against repeal. 

The article points out:

“In his campaign speech last Wednesday, when he offered a new budget plan just one month after he offered a budget plan, President Obama spoke of an ObamaCare offspring called the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which will “look at the evidence and recommend the best ways to reduce unnecessary spending while protecting access to the services seniors need.”

“This is called rationing.

“Rep. Phil Roe, a Tennessee Republican, recently told the Daily Caller that the IPAB is the “real death panel” in the health care law, as compared with the “end-of-life counseling” provisions in ObamaCare that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin once deemed “death panels.””

As I reported on this site (rightwinggranny) on April 12:

“…the latest Rasmussen poll of likely voters shows that Americans have now supported the repeal of Obamacare for 56 consecutive weeks (every single week since it was passed). In 55 of those weeks, including this one, Americans have supported repeal by double-digits (perhaps the political equivalent of a multi-hit game?). This week, repeal is favored by 10 points (51 to 41 percent), by 13 points among those who feel “strongly” (41 to 28 percent), by 16 points among independents (53 to 37 percent), and by 29 points among independents who feel “strongly” (44 to 15 percent).”  

The continuing unpopularity of Obamacare will play a role in the elections of 2012.  The other thing that will influence public opinion on Obamacare is the number of unions and corporations that supported its passage and then received exemptions from complying with it.  That sort of thing leaves a nasty taste in the public’s mouth.

Forcing the vote of Obamacare that Harry Reid did not want to take was good strategy on the part of the Republicans.  Hopefully it is an indication of good decisions to come.

Is America funding terrorists?  Does the Justice Department care?  Which side is the Justice Department on?

These are some of the questions I had as I read an article posted today at National Review by Andrew McCarthy.  The article opens by pointing out the difference between the way Paul Ryan was treated in the President’s speech on the budget last week and the way prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood were treated as they sat in the audience in Cairo in June 2009.  Paul Ryan was invited to attend the speech and then verbally attacked in it.  The Muslim Brotherhood, banned at the time in Egypt, must have loved what they heard from the President.  The article reports on the speech in Cairo:

“That was when al-Azhar University — the font of Sunni theology and training ground for the virulently anti-American clerics who green-light jihadist terror — sponsored his eagerly awaited oration on U.S. relations with the Muslim world. As usual, the speech was specious: a whitewash of the legacy of Islamic savagery, the expurgation of violent injunctions from Islamic scripture, historical ignorance of the Jewish claim to Israel, and even the adoption of “resistance” as the euphemism for Palestinian terrorism — a touch that must have brought a smile to the faces of Hamas and the president’s pal Rashid Khalidi, the former PLO mouthpiece turned Columbia professor.”

It was just a speech, right? 

Mr. McCarthy reminds us of the history of the Muslim Brotherhood:

“In 2008, not long before Obama’s Cairo speech, the Brotherhood was proved to be the prime mover in the biggest terrorism-financing conspiracy ever prosecuted by the Justice Department — specifically, by the Bush-era U.S. attorney’s office in Dallas. Five defendants were convicted in the Holy Land Foundation (HLF) case of routing tens of millions of dollars to Hamas during the intifada. As its charter attests, Hamas is the Muslim Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch. Since its creation in the late 1980s, Hamas’s sustenance has been the top priority of the Brotherhood’s U.S. operatives, including Mousa abu Marzook, who actually ran Hamas from his Virginia home in the early 1990s.”

OK.  We know who they are.  Now Mr. McCarthy reports:

“At Pajamas Media on Thursday, terrorism researcher Patrick Poole broke the news that the Obama Justice Department has put the kibosh on the Dallas U.S. attorney’s plan to bring follow-up terror-financing cases against some of the unindicted coconspirators from the HLF case.”

When Patrick Poole was asked why his source was coming forward at this time, he answered:

Until we act decisively to cut off the financial pipeline to these terrorist groups by putting more of these people in prison, they are going to continue to raise money that will go into the hands of killers. And until Congress starts grilling the people inside DOJ and the FBI who are giving these groups cover, that is not going to change. My biggest fear is that Americans are going to die and it will be the very Muslim leaders we are working with who will be directly or indirectly responsible.

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

“As the Obama administration’s rough treatment of Representative Ryan shows, it’s not a comfortable time to be a member of Congress who starts asking a lot of questions this president doesn’t want to hear. Fortunately for the economy, it appears that Ryan is not backing down. For the sake of our security, though, somebody up on the Hill better step up. It is past time to ask: What on earth is this administration’s infatuation with the Muslim Brotherhood?”

We will never end the jihad against America by supplying terrorists the money to fight it.

Candidate Obama denouced the signing statements sometimes made by George W. Bush when he signed bills.  Well, that was thien, this is now.  Friday’s Daily Caller posted an article about the signing statement made by President Obama as he signed the spending bill recently passed.  The bill called for defunding four Presidential czars.  The President has decided that he will “construe” the law not to interfere with “presidential prerogatives.”  What in the world does that mean?

The entire signing statement is posted at the Daily Caller.  It says essentially that the President plans to ignore certain parts of the bill and work to overturn others.  It doesn’t sound like the spirit of compromise is alive and well in Washington.

As the unrest in the Middle East continues, the price of oil increases and decreases, generally having a net increase.  American politicians seem to be blind to the dangers of depending on foreign sources of energy.

Yesterday the Washington Examiner posted an article entitled “How we will end up paying $6 a gallon for gas.”  The article also points out that the number of people out of work is also growing. 

There is currently a de facto moratorium on United States deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico put there by President Obama.  Gulf oil workers have begged the Obama administration to approve new permits.

The article cites President Obama’s response to these requests:

“Obama responded from the Bizarro World. He said he wanted to cut America’s dependence on foreign oil. Then his administration effectively blocked U.S. offshore exploration, refusing to approve but a handful of deepwater permits in the Gulf. He said he wanted incentives for domestic drilling, then sought new limits on drilling leases.

“Oh, yes, Obama did call for more drilling in 2011… in Brazil. He traveled there to tell Brazil’s leaders that he was looking forward to importing more of their oil. “We want to help with technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely, and when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers,” Obama said.”

Of course this makes America dependent on Brazil’s oil production.  Meanwhile Brazil and China are drawing closer together as part of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), a group that is attempting to decrease American influence in the world.  (See rightwinggranny April 15, 2011).

We need to expand energy production in the United States now.  Otherwise we will find ourselves paying more to drive and more to heat our homes in the very near future.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about an aspect of the President’s budget speech that I missed.  He cites an artice at wordpress.com which states:

“Called a “debt failsafe trigger,” Obama’s scheme would automatically raise taxes if politicians spend too much. According to the talking points distributed by the White House, the automatic tax increase would take effect “if, by 2014, the projected ratio of debt-to-GDP is not stabilized and declining toward the end of the decade.”

“Let’s ponder what this means. If politicians in Washington spend too much and cause more red ink, which happens on a routine basis, Obama wants a provision that automatically would raise taxes on the American people.”

The taxpayers need to make sure Washington gets the message that the problem is the spending–not the taxes.

Walter Mondale posted an article at the Washington Post yesterday entitled, “As in 1984, we need the courage to raise taxes.”  I do not support raising taxes.  I do however support changing the tax code.  According to Smart Money, in 2009 an estimated 47% of U. S. households did not pay any federal income tax.  When I hear that number, I assume that those are low income households, but that is not necessarily correct.  The article points out that a family of four (two adults and two children under 18) with an income of $50,250 a year claiming the standard deduction and four exemptions in 2010 had a tax bill of $2,800.  When you add in the child tax credit ($2000) and the make work credit ($800), they owe nothing.  There are many parts of America where a family can live quite comfortably on $ 50,250 a year.  Everyone should have some interest in what the tax rates are and what the government spends.  When half the people don’t pay taxes, they have no reason to care.

We can get out of debt without raising taxes, but it will take fiscal restraint on the part of Washington and a closer look at our social spending and the impact on society of that spending.  The Great Society of the 1960’s has not ended poverty–it has simply made everyone in the country a little poorer. 

The above chart comes from usgovernmentspending.com.  We need to think about the impact welfare spending has had on the American family.  We need to rewrite the rules so that generations of families do not remain on welfare and families are strengthened through the system–not destroyed.

The American people have been taxed enough.  It is time to elect people who will deal with the runaway spending that has become part of the culture of Washington.

Today’s Daily Caller reports that South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint has introduced an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that would limit the terms of Senators and Representatives in Congress.  He suggests three terms for Representatives and two terms for Senators.  The purpose of the amendment is to prevent the kind of power base building we have seen in Washington that has made it almost impossible to enact any serious reform. 

The article quotes Senator DeMint:

“We need true citizen legislators who spend their time defending the consitution, not currying favor with lobbyists.  We need new leaders continually coming to Congress to ensure every taxpayer dollar is spent wisely, not wasted on Washington special interests.  We must end the era of permanent politicians that has lead us to a $14 trillion debt and a pending fiscal crisis.”

To amend the Constitution, two-thirds of Congress has to pass the amendment and 75 percent of the states have to vote for it.

Senator DeMint concludes:

“Let me be clear that term limits will only succeed when the same rules apply to everyone.  Self-term limits are a recipe for self-defeat, as the career politicians simply wait out the true reformers.  We must have term limits for all or term limits won’t succeed.”

I think this is a wonderful idea.

Wednesday’s Washington Post posted an analysis of the recently passed budget deal to fund the remainder of 2011.  Originally, the Republicans claimed that the deal would cut spending by $38 billion, a little more than one third of the budget cuts promised.  That figure has rapidly decreased since the deal was passed.

Ed Morrissey posted a similar analysis at Hot Air yesterday.  I admit that I do not understand the logic of the process by which Washington spends money, but I think Mr. Morrissey’s analysis is fairly understandable.  He cites an article at Politico which states:

“[W]hen CBO estimated the initial House bill in February, it projected that the $61.3 billion in nonemergency appropriations cuts would result in $9.2 billion in outlay reductions by Sept. 30 when measured against comparable outlay estimates two months earlier, on Dec. 20.

“By comparison, the precise appropriations cut now, $37.7 billion, translates into a vastly smaller sum, $352 million, using the same standard.”

This is quite a change from $38 billion.  The Washington Post points out:

“When war funding is factored in the legislation would actually increase total federal outlays by $3.3 billion relative to current levels.”

This is definitely not moving in the right direction.  The upcoming budget battles will be on raising the debt ceiling and the 2012 budget.  In the case of the debt ceiling, there will be dire predictions of what will happen if the Republicans do not go along with the President’s ideas.  I think it’s time for dire consequences.  If we don’t stop the runaway spending now, we will never stop it.

This article is based on two articles–an article from Big Peace today and a Reuters story posted at Yahoo Finance yesterday.

Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) have been meeting in China for the past several days.  According to the Reuters story:

“The BRICS group of emerging-market powers kept up the pressure on Thursday for a revamped global monetary system that relies less on the dollar and for a louder voice in international financial institutions.”

The thing to keep in mind here is that Brazil is moving closer to China.  According to an article at Investment U today:

“Economic ties between Brazil and China have grown exponentially over the last decade. And the best evidence is that bilateral trade has jumped 1,300 percent.

“Newly minted Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff’s trip to China this week highlights a deepening partnership not only in business, but also in economic strategy.”

The UK Telegraph reported on March 19 of this year:

“President Barack Obama has pledged that the United States will be a “major customer” for Brazilian oil in the coming years amid continuing unrest in the Middle East.”