On A Personal Note

2010 Ford Mustang photographed in Fort Washing...

Image via Wikipedia

For anyone who has been reading this blog for a while, I would like to update you on the rear window defogger on my Mustang Convertible. As you recall, the Mustang is a 2010 and had less than 14,000 miles on it when the defogger stopped working. The dealer told me that it was not covered by warranty and that I would have to spend $2000 out of pocket to replace the top. I was not happy with that answer and wrote to Ford. Initially Ford was not particularly helpful, so I wrote to the state Attorney General Consumer Affairs division and the Better Business Bureau. I did contact Ford again before I filled out the paperwork for the Better Business Bureau. The customer service person I got was very helpful, but the problem was still unsolved. After I contacted the Better Business Bureau, Ford called me to schedule an appointment with a “Ford Engineer” at the dealership. The rear window defogger is now working. The total cost to me was $7 (I put gas in the loaner car).

What have I learned from this? All future work on the car will be done at a different dealership–had I not pursued this, I would have spent $2000 that I don’t have and didn’t need to spend. The Better Business Bureau is there for a reason–don’t be afraid to contact them if you have a legitimate problem with a business. The Consumer Affairs division of the Attorney General’s office was also extremely helpful. As consumers, we do have certain rights, but we need to be willing to exercise them.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Are Losing Our Freedom

Big Government posted a story today about U.S. Army Specialist Mark Grapin, who lives in Fairfax County, Virginia. He recently returned from a tour of duty in Iraq and decided to build a treehouse for his sons. The Fairfax Country Zoning Board demanded that he tear down the treehouse after an anonymous complaint. After Specialist Grapin went to the media, an online petition was started, and Specialist Grapin was able to convince the Zoning Board to allow him to leave the treehouse up for five years.

I’m glad he got to keep the treehouse for five years, but it bothers me that one person might have stopped his children from the fun of playing in their treehouse.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch For As We Approach 2012

John Hinderaker at Power LIne posted a story today about recent activities by the Obama Justice Department that will make voter fraud more difficult to prevent. The Department of Justice has announced that it has rejected South Carolina’s voter identification law.

The article reports:

Department of Motor Vehicles executive director Kevin Shwedo said the state Election Commission knew it was using inaccurate data when it released reports showing nearly 240,000 active and inactive voters lacked driver’s licenses or ID cards.

Shwedo sent the state’s attorney general an analysis showing that 207,000 of those voters live in other states, allowed their ID cards to expire, probably have licenses with names that didn’t match voter records or were dead. He said the commission created “artificially high numbers to excite the masses.”

When the motor-voter law was passed, it required states to periodically examine their voting lists to eliminate people who had died or moved from the state. Unfortunately, in many states, that portion of the law has not been enforced. That is one of many reasons why voter identification is needed in all elections.

Voter identification requirements are not about denying people the right to vote–the are about ensuring that every man’s vote counts equally. When voter fraud is allowed to flourish, all Americans should be concerned.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taking Advantage Of An Uninformed Electorate

 Charles Krauthammer posted an article today at National Review about the bill passed yesterday in Congress allowing a 60-day tax break for Americans. First of all, it is not a tax break–it is a raid on Social Security at a time when Social Security can least afford to be raided. Second of all, no sane government sets a two-month tax policy.

The Republicans had the right argument on principle–the tax cut needed to be for the full year, but they lost on the politics. The reason they lost on the politics is that most Americans were paying more attention to their Christmas shopping than to what was actually happening in Congress, and when the media (and the Democrats) told them that the Republicans were holding up their tax break, they believed it.

Dr. Krauthammer states:

To begin with, what even minimally rational government enacts payroll-tax relief for just two months? As a matter of practicality alone, it makes no sense. The National Payroll Reporting Consortium, representing those who process paychecks, said of the two-month extension passed by the Senate just days before the new year: “There is insufficient lead time to accommodate the proposal,” because “many payroll systems are not likely to be able to make such a substantial programming change before January or even February,” thereby “creat[ing] substantial problems, confusion and costs.”

He further states:

The House Republicans’ initial rejection of this two-month extension was therefore correct on principle and on policy. But this was absolutely the wrong place, the wrong time, to plant the flag. Once Senate Republicans overwhelmingly backed the temporary extension, that part of the fight was lost. Opposing it became kamikaze politics.

The responsibility for this debaucle ultimately rests with the American people (and the fact that the media was failing to report both sides of the story). If we have truly reached a point in our history when we are tired of politics as usual, then we need to be willing to do something about it. We need to pay enough attention so that politics cannot trump good policy. Until that happens, we will get more of the same.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unfortunately Voter Fraud Is A Problem

Yesterday Fox News posted a story about four Democrat office holders and operatives in Troy, New York, who have pleaded guilty to voter fraud.

The article reports:

Former Troy Democratic City Clerk William McInerney, Democratic Councilman John Brown, and Democratic political operatives Anthony Renna and Anthony DeFiglio have entered guilty pleas in the case, in which numerous signatures were allegedly forged on absentee ballots in the 2009 Working Families Party primary, the political party that was associated with the now-defunct community group, ACORN. 

The four have pleaded guilty to one count of various charges, ranging from forgery to falsifying business records, and criminal possession of a forged instrument. 

The group forged signatures of voters on applications for absentee ballots and on ballots, then cast their votes.

The article further reports:

St. Joseph County Prosecutor Michael Dvorak, in South Bend, is currently investigating allegations that numerous signatures on 2008 Democratic Presidential primary petitions for then candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, were faked. There are claims that so many signatures were fraudulent, that the Obama campaign may not have actually obtained enough legitimate signatures to have legally qualified for the ballot. And just like the New York voters in Troy who told Fox News that they never signed absentee ballots, voters in South Bend and Mishawaka told us that their signatures were forged too. 

Voter identification would not have helped prevent fraud in the case of the absentee ballots. The only answer here is to make sure that the city or town clerk checks the signature on everyone asking for an absentee ballot or signing nomination papers. It is unfortunate that this is necessary, but the fact remains that it is necessary to ensure an honest vote.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Starting A Trade War With Carbon Credits

 

An Icelandair Boeing 757-200 takes off from Lo...

Image via Wikipedia

CNS News is reporting today that starting January 1, all American airlines flying into European airports will be be liable for charges for emitting greenhouse gases blamed for “global warming.”

The article reports:

Under an E.U. directive that comes into effect in just 10 days, airlines using European airports will be allocated tradable allowances covering a certain amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted each year, based on historical emissions data. CO2 emissions beyond the allowance must be paid for, and airlines can trade permits among themselves depending on how much carbon they produce.

Proponents say aviation accounts for three percent of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Please read the sentence above again.

If you are a believer in global warming, there is an aspect of this you need to keep in mind. Paying an extra $10 to $52 a ticket to fly to Europe actually has no impact on pollution–it is a way for someone to collect money from your activities. If the surtax decreases the number of people flying to Europe, it means fewer people in each plane, thus each person in the plane has a bigger carbon footprint–not a smaller one! It is the equivalent of your going up to someone and saying, “If you pay me five dollars, I won’t take a shower today and that will help the planet.” It won’t make a significant difference, and depending on what your daily activities are, it might even make your corner of the planet a little less pleasant.

Global warming, unfortunately, is about redistribution of wealth. The science is not settled and the people pushing the panic button have an agenda other than the welfare of the planet. As I have stated before, one of the best sources on the current science of climate change is wattsupwiththat. It is a very scientifically oriented site and is quite often well over my head, but there are great charts and graphs explaining what is actually going on with the earth’s climate–both now and in the past.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Really Do Need To Clean Out The Justice Department

Pajamas Media posted a story yesterday about Stephanie Celandine Gyamfi, a career employee in the Justice Department, who has now admitted to perjury during an inquiry into Justice Department leaks during the Bush Administration. The article points out that although she has admitted to committing perjury, there have been no consequences for her actions so far–in fact, she continues to be assigned to politically sensitive cases.

What is this actually about? The article reports:

Ms. Gyamfi made no secret of her hatred of conservatives and Republicans when I worked in the Voting Section from 2001 to 2002. Later, when I moved to the Civil Rights Division’s front office, she had a difficult time hiding her contempt any time she was forced to meet with the political leadership. In revelations now known throughout the Voting Section, she apparently went beyond hatred and resorted to flagrantly violating Justice Department confidentiality requirements and ethical obligations. It is now common knowledge in the Section that she lied about her actions to Inspector General investigators and was caught in the lie with e-mail documentation. Ahh, it’s always the cover-up.

According to numerous sources within the Section, Ms. Gyamfi had been asked in two separate interviews whether she was involved in the leaking of confidential and privileged information out of the Voting Section. Each time, she flatly denied any knowledge as to who was responsible for the leaks. In a third interview, she was once again questioned about her role in the leaks. At first, she adamantly denied involvement. Then, however, she was confronted with e-mail documents rebutting her testimony.

The purpose of the leaks was to make the Bush Administration look bad. Of course all of the major news outlets reported the leaks. Please follow the link above and read the entire article. Evidently the U. S. Justice Department was politicized long before President Obama took control of it. That is very sad. This is another reflection of the fact that many Americans supposedly serving the country are putting politics above what is good for America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Thought From A Fellow Blogger

A friend and fellow blogger of mine, DaTechGuy.com, has pointed out that the arithmetic we are being given on the battle for the tax cut in Congress is not quite accurate.

He points out:

An 8 week extension of the payroll tax (forgetting the expense the short-term change would cost) would generate 8 x 40 or $320.

A 52 week extension that the GOP has already passed would generate 52 x $40 or $2080 dollars.

Therefore the House bill gives a net profit of 2080-320 or $1760 dollars more to the avg taxpayer.

Instead of asking people what they would do with $40 that the house is keeping from them, perhaps they should ask what they would do with the #1760dollars that the tea party house has approved and the senate has not?

Aside from the fact that it is not a tax cut–it is a raid on Social Security–that is a very interesting way of looking at it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Looks Innocent But It Isn’t

CBN News reported today on U.N. Resolution 16/18, a U.N. Resolution supported by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The resolution sounds very practical until you examine it closely. The resolution seeks to limit freedom of speech when dealing with Islam.

The Center for Security Policy reports:

The Obama administration started down this ill-advised road by cosponsoring in 2009 an OIC-drafted resolution in the UN Human Rights Council that condemned “defamation of religion” – read, Islam.  That initiative helped advance the Islamists’ twelve-year campaign to “prohibit and criminalize” such defamation in accordance with the “blasphemy laws” that are part of the totalitarian doctrine they call shariah.

Then, as more and more of the Free World began awakening to the danger posed by such efforts to compel them to submit to shariah, Team Obama helped engineer a new document at the Human Rights Council.  Adopted in March, Resolution 16/18 focused, instead of banning defamation, on getting the world’s nations to combat “intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization, and  discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”  

The countries in the OIC that are sponsoring this are countries where a person can be put to death for converting to Christianity or encouraging anyone else to become a Christian. Do we really believe that they are for preventing discrimination based on religion?

The article at CBN reports:

Sekulow (Jordan Sekulow, director of policy and international operations for the American Center for Law and Justice) says his organization is fighting to keep the resolution from becoming adopted because it could backfire and be broadly misinterpreted country by country.

“Just the building of churches … having a cross outside your door can be inciting violence,” Sekulow explained.

“So if you let them define these definitions when there is no problem coming from the minority faiths, this is somehow going to ‘green light’ their suppression,” he added.   

We need to remember that freedom of religion is not a right in many countries around the world. Letting a group of countries where freedom of religion does not exist pass a law about religious discrimination is simply not smart–the intentions of those countries may be very different than the intentions of the countries in the world where all faiths are welcome.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Congress Is Stuck On Stupid

English: Prime Minister Stephen Harper speakin...

Image via Wikipedia

For the moment I am going to ignore the fact that the currently debated tax cut is not a tax cut but a raid on Social Security. I am not even going to comment on the impracticality of a so-called tax cut that only lasts for two months. I am going to comment on another part of the bill that is being tossed around Congress as a political football.

Please understand, the current debate over the tax bill is worth more politically to President Obama than the bill would be if it were passed. The debate over this bill is the perfect opportunity for the Washington establishment to trash the Tea Party. There is also the problem that if the bill were passed, President Obama would have to approve the Keystone Pipeline or explain why he wasn’t approving it (as opposed to his current vote of ‘present’).

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the Keystone Pipeline. Prime Minister Harper of Canada is getting rather tired of the dithering of the Obama Administration on the matter.

The article reports:

 Canada could sell its oil to China and other overseas markets with or without approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline in the United States, says Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

In a year-end television interview, Harper indicated he had doubts the $7-billion pipeline would receive political approval from U.S. President Barack Obama, and that Canada should be looking outside the United States for markets.

“I am very serious about selling our oil off this continent, selling our energy products off to Asia. I think we have to do that,” Harper said in the Monday interview with CTV National News.

Harper’s comments were released a day after the White House sent signals it might kill TransCanada’s oil sands pipeline if it is forced to make a decision on the project in 60 days, saying there wasn’t sufficient time to complete a new environmental review.

The Keystone Pipeline is needed–it would create jobs and put more of America’s oil supply in the hands of a country that actually likes us. With the Arab spring turning into the Muslim winter, we really need to think about where our energy comes from.

The article at Hot Air concludes:

Meanwhile, China is growing thirstier, and Canada grows impatient to sell its bountiful oil to someone who really wants it.  Maybe everyone should concentrate on the real economic benefits of the Keystone XL pipeline instead of the illusory differences between a 2- and 12-month extension of a tax holiday that produced no economic stimulus at all over the past year.

The House of Representatives is right to demand a year-long extension of the so-called tax cut, but they are going to be thoroughly slammed in the political debate.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need More Tea Party Members In Congress

 

Official portrait of United States Senator (R-OK).

Image via Wikipedia

Dr. Tom Coburn released his report on wasteful government spending today. The report is entitled “Wastebook 2011.”

Here are some of the highlights:

• $75,000 to promote awareness about the role Michigan plays in producing Christmas trees & poinsettias.

 • $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska.

 • $113,227 for video game preservation center in New York.

 • $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

 • $48,700 for 2nd annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival, to promote Hawaii’s chocolate industry.

 • $350,000 to support an International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy.

 • $10 million for a remake of “Sesame Street” for Pakistan.

 • $35 million allocated for political party conventions in 2012.

 • $765,828 to subsidize “pancakes for yuppies” in the nation’s capital.

 • $764,825 to study how college students use mobile devices for social networking.

We need to elect people to Congress who will stop the wasteful spending. The problem is on both sides of the aisle. There is a Washington political establishment that believes spending is power and will continue to wildly spend until they are voted out of office. All Americans need to pay attention during the next year to see who the spenders are and who is trying to shrink the government and its spending. Then we need to vote accordingly.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

In Washington Things Are Never As They Appear To Be

 

English: Aerial photo of Tea Party rally to ou...

Image via Wikipedia

Tampa Bay Online is reporting today that the House of Representatives has voted 229-193 to reject the Senate’s proposal for a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut. 

The article reports:

The House vote, 229-193, kicks the measure back to the Senate, where the bipartisan two-month measure passed on Saturday by a sweeping 89-10 vote. The Senate then promptly left Washington for the holidays. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says he won’t allow bargaining until the House approves the Senate’s short-term measure.

OK. Let’s take a look at this. The Republicans in the Senate need to be taken to the woodshed on this one. First of all, a two-month extension of a tax policy is totally ridiculous. Companies need time to program their payroll software, they need some certainty in the future to allow them to plan expenses. The Republicans in the Senate fell right into the hands of the Democrat politicians on this one. Harry Reid left town in order to avoid negotiations. He knew that the House would reject this bill–this is the Democrat way of avoiding the Keystone Pipeline and blaming the Republicans for the middle class tax increase that is coming.

There will be no payroll tax cut extension. In itself, that is not horrible. (Don’t panic. I am not for higher taxes, I just don’t like the way this was done). The payroll tax cut comes out of the “Social Security Fund” (which is nonexistent)–not the general fund. The payroll tax cut ensures the demise of Social Security sooner rather than later. Raising taxes on millionaires, increasing the cost of mortgages, etc., has no impact on the money not collected because of the payroll tax cut–those things impace the general fund–not the social security fund.

Unfortunately, this battle is totally about politics and the American people are the losers. The correct answer to the entire situation would have been for Congress to pass a real budget–which it has not done for almost three years and proceed from there.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly Who Should Be In Charge Of “Sustainable Development” ?

Fox News reported yesterday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to expand its powers greatly to help America achieve “sustainable development.”  “Sustainable development,” is the centerpiece of a global United Nations conference slated for Rio de Janeiro next June.

Sustainable development is a concept that has been with us for a number of years. A 1987 UN report, Our Common Future, released by the Brundtland Commission, defines sustainable development as:

…development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

That sounds really good until you look further. Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s 1992 Earth Summit stated:

Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class–involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing–are not sustainable.

The idea here is simple–rather than aspire to obtain a higher standard of living in countries without infrastructure, reliable electricity, and sanitation facilities, we will simply lower the standards of the western world. This is not about ecology–this is about redistribution of wealth.

The article at Fox News reports:

According to the study itself, the adoption of the new “sustainability framework” will make the EPA more “anticipatory” in its approach to environmental issues, broaden its focus to include both social and economic as well as environmental “pillars,” and “strengthen EPA as an organization and a leader in the nation’s progress toward a sustainable future.”

Whatever EPA does with its suggestions, the study emphasizes, will be “discretionary.” But the study urges EPA to “create a new culture among all EPA employees,” and hire an array of new experts in order to bring the sustainability focus to every corner of the agency and its operations. Changes will move faster “as EPA’s intentions and goals in sustainability become clear to employees,” the study says.

The National Academies and the EPA held a meeting last week in Washington to begin public discussion of the study.

One of the things we might want to remember here is that the EPA is not an elected body. They cannot easily be held accountable. They cannot be voted out of office. Regardless of how you feel about the environmental issues here, there is definitely a constitutional issue here.

“Sustainable development” is a UN program–it is not an American program. Americans have never had a chance to vote on it or any group implementing it. Giving the EPA any more power than they already have would be a drastic error in judgement. Please google “Agenda 21” for more information on what is behind the move toward sustainable development.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Should Foxboro Massachusetts Have A Casino ?

A website entitled nofoxborocasino.com posted the following:

We recently posted a report written by the Mayor of Ledyard, CT (home to Foxwoods Casino) in 2001 entitled: “Report, Fiscal Impacts of Foxwoods Casino on the Town of Ledyard, Connecticut. Mayor Wesley J. Johnson, Sr.; Town of Ledyard; December 2001.”This was written 9 years after Foxwoods opened.

We believe Foxwoods is a good case study of what happens to a small town when a casino is built. Note Ledyard’s population was 15,000, similar to 17,000 in the Town of Foxboro today.

Some Important Statistics Cited in the Report (read the full report here):

  1. The crime rate in Ledyard went up by 300%.
  2. There was a 200% increase in traffic volumes.
  3. Ledyard went to having the highest DWI / DUI rate in the state.
  4. Foxwoods averages 55,000 visitors a day (that is almost equivalent to a Patriots home game–365 days a year!)
  5. Jobs were created, but they were low paying jobs making under $25,000 per year.
  6. And the report concludes with “…. the social cost of problem gambling, inability to regulate land use and uncertainty about where and how future development will occur, will continue to effect the financial stability, rural character and quality of life in our town.”

I understand that a casino brings in revenue, but the experience of Ledyard seems to indicate that it also adversely impacts life in the town. Hopefully Foxboro residents will have access to information on both sides of the issue before they vote.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happens Next In North Korea ?

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is dead. This was reported by North Korean state television early today. The North Korean media is reporting that Kim Jong Il died on Saturday during a train ride. The youngest of his three sons, Kim Jong Eun, will succeed him.

The article in the Wall Street Journal reports:

South Korean shares tumbled along with other Asian markets on concerns about potential instability in the region. South Korea’s Kospi Composite fell 3.4% to a four-week low after initially dropping 4.4%. South Korea’s currency, the won, tumbled to over two-month lows against the dollar before recovering somewhat.

Kim Jong Eun is believed to be 27 or 28 years old. In September 2010, his father appointed him a four-star general in the North Korean military and to high-level posts in the ruling political party.

An article in the New York Daily News today suggests that the chances of a military coup in North Korea at this time are very small. The concern that seems to come up in most of the articles written today on the death of Kim Jong Il is the fact that North Korea has nuclear weapons. The unknown fact is who has control of those weapons and whether or not this change in leadership will mean that North Korea will become an aggressor in that area of the world. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Voting With Your Feet

Quarter of Massachusetts

Image via Wikipedia

Last week the Daily Caller posted an article about the impact of tax policy on where people choose to live. A recent study released by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), which leans left, concluded that weather has more on an impact of where people choose to live than tax policy. The article at the Daily Caller lists a few inconvenient facts that dispute that conclusion.

The article cites the fact that Hawaii and California have lost significant amounts of population over the last 20 years–3.6 million more people have moved out of California than have moved in, and 130,000 more people have moved out of Hawaii than have moved in. During that same time period, Florida gained 2.3 million net residents.

The article also reports:

If weather matters more than taxes, then why is Alaska performing so well compared to California and Hawaii? Alaska may have the worst climate in the country and California and Hawaii arguably have the best, but Alaska has out-performed both states on nearly every measure, according to Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer Economic Competitiveness Index, a report from the American Legislative Exchange Council.

There are also some interesting statistics on what happened in Maryland after the state passed a millionaires’ tax in 2008–there was a 33 percent decline in tax returns from millionaire households. The article also reports that Maryland lost $1 billion of its net tax base in 2008 because of out-migration.

The article concludes:

State elected officials obviously have little control over their states’ 10-day forecasts, but they do control their states’ tax climates. We know tax policy is not the only reason people are motivated to live, invest or grow a business in a state, but it plays a significant role. State lawmakers should keep this in mind as they shape public policy.

I will admit that when my husband retires, we will probably relocate. The tax policy of a state will be taken into consideration at that time. Tax policies in Massachusetts (and the cost of living in the state) make it a less than ideal place to retire. The climate doesn’t help either! 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Government And Common Sense Part Company

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about California’s plans to build a high speed railway. In 2008 the voters approved bonds for the $33 billion that the project was estimated to cost. Unfortunately, the project, which is not yet started, has now been estimated to cost $99 billion to complete (and not provide any service for ten years). If this sounds like insanity, that’s because it is insanity.

A few of the problems with the project–California is a net importer of electricity–no one has proposed how to power the train, the fixed-rail system will be on top of or parallel to the San Andreas fault, and taxpayers will have to heavily subsidize the service to make it price competitive with the other options of driving or flying.

The article reports:

The Obama administration vowed Thursday at a House committee meeting in Washington that it would not back down from its support of California’s bullet train project despite attacks from critics who alleged it is tainted by political corruption.

We need people in Congress who will put a stop to this sort of outrageous spending.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Sharia Law Really Means

News24 reported yesterday that Gulnaz, an Afghan woman who had been jailed when she reported that she had been raped (yes, you read that right), has been pardoned and set free. She was jailed for adultery because she had been raped. She is now in hiding with her daughter, who was conceived in the rape.

An article in the U.K. Telegraph reported on Wednesday:

Violence against women in Afghanistan appears to be increasing rather than decreasing, despite billions of dollars of international aid which has poured into the country during the decade-long war.

The Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission logged 1,026 cases of violence against women in the second quarter of 2011 compared with 2,700 cases for the whole of 2010.

Some 87 per cent of Afghan women report having experienced physical, sexual or psychological violence or forced marriage, according to figures quoted in an October report by the charity Oxfam.

Last month, the United Nations said that a landmark law aiming to protect women against violence in Afghanistan had only been used to prosecute just over 100 cases since being enacted two years ago.

This is the legacy of the Taliban-enforced Sharia Law. We have already had honor killings in America by Muslim men. We need to make sure that Sharia Law does not creep into our legal system. 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need More Of The Tea Party In Congress

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article about the recent budget votes in Congress. He echoes the feelings of many Americans in stating that the budget cutting is a sham and that nothing in Washington has changed since 2010.

Jeff Sessions, who voted against the bill, explains why:

Beyond my concerns over the last-minute vote, there are several important reasons why I have decided to oppose the spending bill in its current form. Rhetorically, leaders in Washington have made a commitment to reduce spending. But, if the offsets do not pass—and I fear Senate Democrats will oppose them—Congress will actually end up increasing discretionary spending by $4 billion over last year. Even if the offsets do pass, due to previous discretionary appropriations, Congress will still fall short of the $7 billion discretionary reduction that was promised as part of the budget deal this summer—spending $2 billion more than the $1,043 cap identified as the maximum spending level.

John McCain stated:

“Here we are again,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). “Not one member of this body has read the 1,221 pages of this bill representing $915 billion of the taxpayers’ money. Here we are with 15 minutes to consider a document representing $915 billion of taxpayers’ money filled with unauthorized, unrequested spending.”

“It’s outrageous,” continued McCain. “I have amendments to save billions and billions of the taxpayers’ money, but never mind because we are going home for Christmas.”

We are at this point because the Senate has refused to pass a budget–even when the Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, the White House, and the Senate. As Jeff Sessions pointed out, almost 1,000 days have passed since Senate Democrats have offered a budget.

The Tea Party Republicans in the House of Representatives have made serious efforts to cut the budget. The Democrats and the establishment Republicans have fought them at every turn. There are places where a conservative Republican cannot be elected. I understand that. However, where voters have a choice, we need conservative Republicans to change the climate in Washington. Otherwise, we will have more of the same.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Did Avoid A Government Shutdown

The Hill posted a fairly good summary of the budget deal reached in Congress that will prevent a government shutdown. The Congress has actually agreed on something. Now the bill goes back to the House of Representatives for final approval and the President has to approve it in order for it to become law.

The payroll tax cut was extended for two months. That means that we will have to sit through all the posturing and name calling again in about six to eight weeks. Yuck. The bill includes a provision to expedite the construction of the Keystone Pipeline. The bill does not extend some of the business tax breaks–this will not be good for the growth of the economy–there is no such thing as a corporate tax–all corporate taxes are paid by the consumer.

The Hill reports:

The bill now awaits approval next week by the House of Representatives. Senate aides expect House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to agree to the proposal but he will not do so formally until he has had a chance to consult with members of the House GOP caucus.

The thing to remember here is that all these last minute theatrics are caused by the fact that the Senate has not approved a budget since President Obama took office (even during the two years he controlled the House and the Senate), so there are no spending guidelines in place. What we need is for Congress to actually pass a budget that they will have to follow. That would help make Washington a saner place.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Politics Trumps National Security

A U.S. Coast Guard vessel patrols Guantanamo B...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Wall Street Journal (no link–subscribers only) has an editorial entitled, “The Daqduq Disgrace.” It deals with terrorist Ali Musa Daqduq, a Hezbollah operative involved in the planning of the kidnapping and murder of American soldiers in Karbala in 2007, who is also guilty of arming and training Iraqi insurgents. Daqduq is in Iraqi custody. It is expected that Daqduq will be released.

The article reports:

The Administration contends that its hands were tied by the U. S.-Iraq status-of-forces agreement negotiated by the Bush Administration, which required Iraq’s consent–not forthcoming–to remove any prisoners from the country. But it’s hard to see why that stipulation would apply to Daqduq, who is not an Iraqi citizen (he is a Lebanese national).

The Administration considered bringing Daqduq to the U.S. for trial in federal court or a military tribunal (showing that the status-of-forces deal was not insurmountable).

The article in the Wall Street Journal points out that the place for Daqduq to go was Guantanamo. Unfortunately, although the Obama Administration has not been successful in its attempts to close Guantanamo, it has refused to send anyone there.

Daqduq will receive a hero’s welcome in either Beirut or Tehran. It is a shame that politics have prevented us from locking up someone who will probably do harm to America in the future.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Simulated Reserve and Corridor System to Protect Biodiversity

I realize that this map is very hard to read. It comes from a website called Range Magazine. It is the map of the United Nations goal for the habitation of America. The only parts of the map that will be allowed to be used as places to live by ordinary citizens are the green portions. Notice that there is not a lot of green on this map.

Wildlands Map

An article at a website called Sovereignty.net relates the story of the treaty:

On June 29, 1994, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved the ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity (Biodiversity Treaty) by a vote of 16 to 3. Only Senators Helms, Pressler, and Coverdell voted no. Three months later, on September 30, Senate Majority Leader, George Mitchell, for the second and final time, withdrew the Convention from the Senate calendar. The Treaty was never voted on, and now languishes in the bowels of government awaiting the arrival of a more friendly Senate. The defeat of the Treaty in the 103rd Congress came as a stunning victory for the private property rights and natural resource providers community, and was an astonishing defeat for the administration and its army of environmental organizations which had carefully orchestrated what it thought was certain ratification. The events that led to the defeat of the Treaty have been grossly misreported by the environmental community and by the main-stream press. Here is an accurate account of the events as they occurred, compiled from the records of many of the people who were in the forefront of the battle.

For years I have listened to Rush Limbaugh state that the environmental movement was the new home of the Communists and Socialists who have been politically defeated in the last one hundred years. Investigating Agenda 21 and its related tentacles has convinced me that he is right. All Americans need to be aware that many of the freedoms we take for granted are under attack by our local, state, and federal governments.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Kind Of Logic Makes My Head Hurt

CNS News reported yesterday that former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has stated that extending unemployment benefits would add “600,000 jobs to our economy.”

Now let me get this straight. Extending unemployment beneifts (which have already been extended to almost two years) would add jobs to our economy.

The article further reports:

Although Senate Democrats indicated they would support dropping the millionaire surtax to pay for extending a payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits after a White House meeting on Wednesday, they adamantly oppose several provisions of the Republican bill, such as forcing a quick administration response on the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and reforms to long-term benefits for the jobless.

It is going to be interesting to see what the payroll tax extension bill looks like by the time it is passed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Rest In Peace, Christopher Hitchens

Christoper Hitchens died last night. Christopher Buckley at The New Yorker posted an article today remembering Mr. Hitchens. The article is a wonderful chronicle of Christopher Buckley’s relationship with Christopher Hitchens over the years. I strongly recommend following the link above and reading the whole thing. Rest in peace, Christopher.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Our Changing Culture

The traditional family has always been considered the foundational building block of society. What does it mean when the traditional family is disappearing?

The Houston Chronicle reported on recently released statistics from the Pew Research Center which stated that the marriage rate in 2010 was 51 percent, compared with 72 percent in 1960.

The article posted the following chart:

The article further reported:

The 20-something demographic shows the steepest marriage rate declines, and this is also the generation that’s less likely to attend church regularly or identify with a specific religious tradition.

Pair that with earlier Census analysis by GetReligion showing that “Religious people are most likely to be married and unlikely to cohabitate while nonreligious people are as likely to be single as to be married,” and this might also be a factor contributing to the lowest marriage rates in recent history.

The article also stated that the marriage rate for 18 to 29-year-olds has declined to 20 percent–one third of what it was in 1960.

Quite frankly, I am not sure what this means for our culture and society. Marriage and the family are a vehicle for personal growth–ideally, family members learn to share and to care for each other. My fear is that less marriage will mean less sharing and more selfishness.

Enhanced by Zemanta