Mitt Romney And The Tea Party Surge

Hot Air posted a story today about the impact of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare on Governor Romney’s fundraising. After the Supreme Court released its decision, the Romney campaign raised $4.3 million from 43,000 donations in less than a day. Wow. I guess there are a lot of people who don’t like Obamacare.

The article at Hot Air also cites a Roll Call article about the impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obamacare on the Tea Party:

In upholding most of President Barack Obama’s health care law, the Supreme Court handed the tea party a new lease on life.

While activists spouted made-for-TV rancor through megaphones outside the court Thursday, the behind-the-scenes strategists who helped Republicans take the House in 2010 prepared for a flood of donations they said will fuel even greater gains this November. …

The movement, born in 2009 from the opposition to the health care overhaul, has developed a professionalism that few expected, attracting seasoned operatives and winning allies in Congress. Vitriolic protests have taken a back seat to well-executed fundraising campaigns. Groups such as the Tea Party Express have raised tens of millions of dollars on the promise of derailing the health care law.

And, in many ways, Thursday’s ruling is exactly what they had been training for.

The Supreme Court is not political, but I think they just re-energized the November election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Smoking Gun In Fast And Furious

Roll Call has the full story on this, but since the story is the headline on the DRUDGE REPORT, it is pretty near impossible to get onto their site. I am hoping to be able to do that later tonight.

However, the Washington Times has just posted a related story.

The article at the Washington Times reports:

Rep. Darrell Issa managed to push the details of a secret wiretap application from the botched “Fast and Furious” gunwalking operation into the public domain this week when he entered summaries into the Congressional Record, apparently using Congress‘ protection under the speech and debate clause to get around legal boundaries.

The summary of a March 2010 wiretap application shows that federal agents repeatedly lost track of guns they knew were being trafficked back to cartels in Mexico — a violation of Justice Department policy that should have raised red flags with top department officials who signed off on the wiretaps, said Mr. Issa, California Republican and chairman of the oversight committee that is looking into the operation.

Meanwhile, Fox News is reporting today:

The contempt vote technically opened the door for the House to call on the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia to bring the case before a grand jury. But because U.S. Attorney Ronald Machen works for Holder and because President Obama has already asserted executive privilege over the documents in question, some expected Holder’s Justice Department to balk. 

Deputy Attorney General James Cole confirmed in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner that the department in fact would not pursue prosecution. The attorney general’s withholding of documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious, he wrote, “does not constitute a crime.” 

“Therefore the department will not bring the congressional contempt citation before a grand jury or take any other action to prosecute the attorney general,” Cole wrote, in the letter obtained by Fox News

The fix is in. The goal is to keep the investigation from going anywhere until after November. The only way the American people will ever get the facts on this is to make known to Congress that they feel that Congress should take its oversight responsibilities seriously. Fast and Furious was a government program that killed people. This is not politics–it is about the honesty and transparency of our Department of Justice.


This is a quote from the Roll Call article:

It also described how ATF officials watched guns bought by suspected straw purchasers but then ended their surveillance without interdicting the guns.

In at least one instance, the guns were recovered at a police stop at the U.S.-Mexico border the next day.

The application included financial details for four suspected straw purchasers showing they had purchased $373,000 worth of guns in cash but reported almost no income for the previous year, the letter says.

“Although ATF was aware of these facts, no one was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw purchasers. Upon learning these details through its review of this wiretap affidavit, senior Justice Department officials had a duty to stop this operation. Further, failure to do so was a violation of Justice Department policy,” the letter says.

Holder declined to discuss the contents of the applications at a House Judiciary Committee hearing June 7 but said the applications were narrowly reviewed for whether there was probable cause to obtain a wiretap application.

This operation should have ended before it began.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly What Do They Mean By Claiming It’s A Tax ?

The chart below appeared in the Washington Times yesterday:

There are a few things to look at when viewing this chart. Notice the increase in dividend, capital gains and investment taxes on the ‘so-called wealthy.’ How long do you think it will be before that tax increase begins to apply to those of us with significantly lower incomes? How long will it be before that tax applies to all retired people attempting to live on those dividends?

The Washington Times reminds us:

The high court’s ruling leaves in place 21 tax increases in the health care law costing more than $675 billion over the next 10 years, according to the House Ways and Means Committee. Of those, 12 tax hikes would affect families earning less than $250,000 per year, the panel said, including a “Cadillac tax” on high-cost insurance plans, a tax on insurance providers and an excise tax on medical-device manufacturers.

“This is a clear violation of the president’s pledge to avoid tax hikes on low- and middle-income taxpayers,” said a statement from the panel, which is chaired by Rep. Dave Camp, Michigan Republican.

On the campaign trail four years ago and since taking office, Mr. Obama has been fond of saying that middle-class families will not see their taxes rise “a single dime” under his leadership.

The thing to remember here is that Obamacare is not about healthcare–it is about redistribution of wealth. The goal here is to give everything you have worked hard for to those people who have been unwilling to work for it. Please keep this in mind when voting in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Heritage Foundation’s Comments On The Supreme Court’s Decision On Obamacare

Dr. Edwin Feulner, President of the Heritage Foundation, released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare today:

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Two Bright Spots In The Supreme Court’s Ruling On Obamacare

Thank you, Justice Roberts, for energizing the conservatives in the 2012 election. I think even non-conservatives may begin to see what a nightmare Obamacare is as the lawsuits against the recent policies implemented by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius continue.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article on-line about today’s decision. Included in the article are the following paragraphs:

However, the ruling may give more leeway to states that don’t want to cooperate with the law by letting them avoid punishment for refusing to expand Medicaid.

Currently, states and the federal government split the costs of Medicaid, which provides health insurance for the poor. Under the health-care law, the federal government is set to pick up most of the cost of expanding Medicaid, but states would eventually have to chip in part. If states refused to pay their part, the law allowed the federal government to threaten to withdraw all Medicaid funding.

Chief Justice Roberts wrote that such a threat would amount to a “gun to the head” and effectively let Washington commandeer state spending. He said that kind of coercion was unconstitutional. But the remedy he adopted was relatively modest: He said the federal government could expand Medicaid so long as it didn’t threaten states with the withdrawal of all Medicaid funding.

The chief justice added that that the problem with the Medicaid language “does not require striking down other portions” of the law.

Twenty-six states filed suit the day Mr. Obama signed the health-care bill into law in March 2010. Lower courts issued conflicting rulings on whether the law’s insurance mandate was constitutional.

No matter what the decision was, this fight was not going to be over. The decision reached simply assures that the fight will continue at least until November. The Supreme Court did not bow to public pressure on this issue, but we need to remember that a strong majority of Americans do not like Obamacare. If those people vote in November, Obamacare as it now stands will be over.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Greater Boston Tea Party Statement On The Supreme Court’s Ruling On The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act

Greater Boston Tea Party statement on the Supreme Court’s ruling

on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

 We are extremely disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which will allow the Obama administration to move forward in implementing its radical policy that violates our constitutional right of individual Liberty.  We have opened the door to a government that sees no limit to the amount of freedoms it can take away.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and its accompanying “tax”, represents an egregious affront to liberty, and is opposed by Americans of all political persuasions.  “We will redouble our efforts to educate and inform political activists of threat to individual Liberty this policy represents,” said Greater Boston Tea Party President Christine Morabito. “We were told repeatedly this is not a tax. We expect Congress to act immediately to block seizing funds from American citizens to pay for a political whim.”

People who believe in preserving and protecting constitutional principles will continue the fight to repeal any policy that would tax individuals in order to pay for a product deemed a civil right based on political ideology. The Greater Boston Tea party will continue our efforts to petition Congress to repeal this devastating policy, which undermines our individual Liberty.  We will continue to educate activists as to their constitutional rights and how to defend those rights. If we do not stand up and make our voices heard, it is only a matter of time before our remaining liberties come under direct assault.

Now is the time to act! Leaders in Congress are already calling for a vote to repeal the act in early July. Call Congress and demand a repeal of this law. 202-225-3121 Forward this email to family and friends and tell them to do the same!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Supreme Court Has Spoken

About an hour ago, the Supreme Court released its decision on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. My source for this article is an Ed Morrissey article at Hot Air. The comments on the article are as interesting as the article. Some of the comments:

You haven’t purchased a GM vehicle, Comrade. Better get moving on that. You don’t want to get taxed, do you?” — BHO

Can new taxes be passed with just a reconciliation vote?  talkingpoints on June 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM

In my opinion: with the Medicaid expansion clause, if States decide not to expand Medicaid, HHS cannot take their Medicaid funds away. Hence, if half the country doesn’t choose to participate, the Feds can’t force them to. I believe this will effectively kill the bill.

Keep calm and vote Romney.

At this time, the stock market has fallen about 150 points since the announcement. Most Americans have 401k plans that have just been negatively impacted by this decision.

Ed Morrissey reports:

After months and months of focusing on Anthony Kennedy as the weak link in the conservative chain at the Supreme Court, it turns out that Chief Justice John Roberts was the one the Right needed to fear.  With the more centrist Kennedy dissenting, Roberts signed off on the individual mandate in ObamaCare, not as part of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, or even the ludicrous reference to the “Good and Welfare Clause” from some Democrats, but from the more mundane and substantial power to tax.  The opinion actually ruled that the mandate violates the Commerce Clause, but as a tax that no longer matters.

The only good thing about this decision is that it will energize those Americans who believe in individual rights. This now becomes a major election issue with the debate being between those people who still believe they are entitled to a free lunch and those people who realize that someone always has to pay for a free lunch.

Upholding the law means that all the lawsuits concerning the freedom to practice religion will go forward. Some of these cases will probably also wind up at the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

The future of America will depend on what happens in November. Vote!


Enhanced by Zemanta

A Very Subtle Form Of Anti-Semitism

CNS News is reporting today that a German court has ruled that circumcising male children for religious reasons constitutes grievous bodily harm and is a crime, regardless of parental consent. Circumcision is part of the Jewish tradition, having roots in the Book of Genesis.

Genesis 17:10 states: 10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.”

The article reports:

“There is no way of persuading politically-correct modern liberal thinkers of the role of Jewish values, but they missed the latest statistical research data,” Ehrlich (Prof. Fred Ehrlich of the School of Public Health and Community Medicine at the University of New South Wales in Australia) said.

Over the past decade or so, studies have found significant health benefits from the practice, including a lower risk of contracting HIV-AIDS among heterosexual men, lower rates of infection from the virus that causes cervical cancer among the wives or partners of circumcised men, and most recently, a slightly lower risk of developing prostate cancer.

“Circumcision is akin to vaccination,” Ehrlich said. “It has significant benefits in preventing urinary infection in infants, with its small but not negligible mortality rate, in preventing AIDS in adulthood, in preventing penile cancer as well as cervical cancer in female partners.

“There is no doubt about the benefit of circumcision, so all we need to do is find out the best time.”

Circumcision in America is common in a male children of all religious faiths. In Europe, it is more common among Jewish males. This decision represents a very subtle form of anti-Semitism.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Beginning Of “No-Go Zones” In America

The Blaze posted a video today showing Muslim-Americans throwing objects (including stones) at Christians in Dearborn, Michigan. During the 2012 Arab International Festival, a group of Christians who were unhappy with the Muslim character of the event protested by carrying signs The video shows what happened next. The video was also posted at Gateway Pundit. It is a rather long video (about 20 minutes), but please watch the entire video. Remember that in America protesting is allowed under the First Amendment.

The video below of the incident is posted at Gateway Pundit. The throwing of objects begins early in the video.

This is not acceptable behavior. The obvious questions is, “Where was the policeman who was so concerned about the Christians using a megaphone when the Muslims started throwing things at the Christians?” It seems to me that a police officer should have detained the people throwing things quickly in order to end the incident.

The Christians were escorted away for having provocative signs. No mention was made of the behaviour of the people throwing things at them. This is entirely backwards, and I hope there will be a lawsuit against the city. Otherwise, we are in danger of creating a “no-go zone” where Sharia law reigns and American law enforcement personnel are not allowed to enter or do their jobs. It seems to me that a few arrests of the people throwing objects would have solved the problem–they were the ones breaking the law.

This is a very disturbing video. It represents a foothold for Sharia law in America.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Checking The Facts On The Campaign

The charts below relating to Presidential campaign fund raising and campaign spending were posted in the Washington Examiner yesterday:



The charts were in response to a statement made by President Obama on the campaign trail. The President stated:

I will be the first president in modern history to be outspent in his re-election campaign, if things continue as they have so far.

I’m not just talking about the super PACs and anonymous outside groups — I’m talking about the Romney campaign itself. Those outside groups just add even more to the underlying problem.

The Romney campaign raises more than we do, and the math isn’t hard to understand: Through the primaries, we raised almost three-quarters of our money from donors giving less than $1,000, while Mitt Romney’s campaign raised more than three-quarters of its money from individuals giving $1,000 or more….

The above statement is simply false, as the charts show. This is the time in the election season where if you believe everything you are told, you are at risk of being misled! 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Borrowed From A Friend On Facebook

Recently, while I was working in the flower beds in the front yard, my neighbors stopped to chat as they returned home from walking their dog.

During our friendly conversation, I asked their 12 year old daughter what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day.

Both of her parents – liberal Democrats – were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”

Her parents beamed with pride!

“Wow…what a worthy goal!” I said. “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to do that!” I told her.

“What do you mean?” she replied.

So I told her, “You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and trim my hedge, and I’ll pay you $50. Then you can go over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I said, “Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Her parents aren’t speaking to me.

Author unknown

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does The Government Want To Enforce The Border With Mexico ?

CBN News posted a story today about a technology that would make a huge difference along America‘s southern border with Mexico.

The article reports:

Arlington, Texas, is home of the Cowboys stadium, and one of the most technologically advanced municipalities in the country.

CBN News met a man there who developed the security system for the Super Bowl, and may also hold the key to securing the southern border.

“The fence is a wonderful tool if you want to stop wildlife, if you want to stop livestock, if you want to stop somebody for 30 seconds,” Dan Hammons, owner of Hammons Enterprises, explained.

“We think the border needs to be a line in the sand as opposed to a wide area,” he added.

“If a person crawls over that fence or crosses that border illegally, we have a wide array of sensing technologies that will set off an alarm and will turn on a camera on a node tower,” Hammons said. “So you can determine, is it a person, is it a deer, is it a cow.”

“With our system, I’m confident that we are going to detect 100 percent of the people crossing that border illegally,” he boldly claimed.

Mr. Hammons ‘security system costs about $1 million less per mile than the border fence. Because of the bandwidth of his security system, Border Patrol agents would be able to see thousands of video streams covering thousands of miles in real time.

The article at CBN reports the government’s response:

Still, decision makers in Washington have repeatedly turned down Hammons’ ideas.

“They have shut the door in our face,” he said.

“We offered to do this for them for free. We wanted to build a three-mile section of it for free. No cost or obligation to the government, all we wanted was an operational evaluation,” Hammons recalled.

He hinted that the system’s potential may be viewed by some as a political problem.

“We’re going to be able to tell the truth about what’s going on on the border,” Hammons said. “We’re going to be able to show the American public exactly what is happening down there.”

In the meantime, ranchers along Arizona’s border feel like they’re stuck in a war zone.

“Regardless of what Homeland Security and Border Patrol says, the border isn’t as safe as it’s ever been,” Ladd said. “There’s more drugs coming right now than ever before.”

“A guy driving a Border Patrol truck up and down the fence isn’t going to cut it,” he added.

Why is the government ignoring a solution to securing our border that would be both cheaper and more effective?



Enhanced by Zemanta

The Letter Behind The Contempt Of Congress Charge

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story explaining exactly what document Congress is seeking from Attorney General Eric Holder that he is unwilling to give them.

The article reports:

During the June 24 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa cited the email as a “good example” of a specific document his committee knows Holder is hiding from Congress.

“The ATF director, Kenneth Melson, sent an e-mail. And he had said to us in sworn testimony that, in fact, he had concerns,” Issa said. “And we want to see that e-mail because that’s an example where he was saying, if we believe his sworn testimony, that guns walked. And he said it shortly after February 4, and [on] July 4. When he told us that, we began asking for that document.”

But the details of it surfaced first when Grassley mentioned it for the first time publicly during a June 12 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing where Holder was testifying.

“He [Melson] immediately sent an email warning others, ‘back off the letter to Sen. Grassley in light of the information in the affidavits,’” Grassley explained.

It seems as if there has been some serious untruth telling before Congress during the investigation of Operation Fast and Furious. Congress is well within its authority and responsibility to investigate what happened in Operation Fast and Furious that resulted in the deaths of two Border Patrol agents and many Mexicans. It would be nice if the Justice Department would co-operate with the investigation. Obviously, they will not. A contempt citation may be the only logical next step for the Congressional committee investigating Fast and Furious. The Executive Branch does not seem to be willing to provide the information requested when asked nicely.


Enhanced by Zemanta

When America Appears Weak The World Is A More Dangerous Place

In March 2012, Fox News (and other media) reported on President Obama’s supposedly off-microphone comment to Russian President Medvedev. President Obama stated, “This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility.” It was generally believed that this comment was in relation to a potential missile treaty involving defensive missiles in Europe and general disarmament. Unfortunately, it seems as if the Russians interpreted this statement as a sign of weakness on the part of America.

The Washington Free Beacon is reporting today:

Russian strategic nuclear bombers threatened U.S. airspace near Alaska earlier this month and F-15 jets responded by intercepting the aircraft taking part in large-scale arctic war games, according to defense officials.

The Russian war games began the same day President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin held a frosty summit meeting in Mexico June 18.

U.S. officials said the arctic exercises over the Russian Far East and Pacific appeared to be a further sign of Russia’s hardening posture toward the United States.

The Obama administration made no protest of the bomber intrusions, according to the officials, in line with its conciliatory “reset” policy of seeking warmer ties with Moscow.

This is just stupid. Why are we seeking warmer ties with someone who delights in threatening us?

The article further reports:

As part of the arctic military expansion, Russia announced May 30 it was re-opening arctic air bases that had been closed after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.

Russian officials have said the strategic air bases will be used for arctic operations and include airfields in the far north at Naryan-Mar, on Novaya Zemlya, and Franz Josef Land.

Naryan-Mar is a mainland strategic air base and Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land are islands.

Additionally, Russia has announced it is setting up an 8,000-troop Arctic Brigade that will be deployed on the Kola Peninsula, near Finland and Norway.

In 2010, Adm. James A. Winnefeld, then-commander of the Colorado-based U.S. North Command, said in an interview that Russia has continued to fly its strategic nuclear bombers near U.S. airspace as part of Moscow’s efforts to maintain what he termed the illusion of power.

“In some cases, this is about the illusion of power, where power is not quite there,” Winnefeld said from the Colorado Springs-based command known as Northcom. “They are trying to show the world that they are a powerful nation, and we’re not giving them the satisfaction.”

At some point, we need to remember who we are dealing with. One reason the Cold War ended was that the Russians were not able to keep up with American defense technology–the Star Wars technology had a lot to do with that. President Obama is seriously cutting back on all defense spending and making America able to defend herself or stand her ground in the new Cold War. Make no mistake, with Putin in charge of Russia, there will be a new Cold War.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Obama Administration’s Attack On Arizona Continues

There are two sources for this story–an Associated Press story from yesterday and The story by the Associated Press deals with the fact that the Obama Administration has set up a hot line to deal with any complaints of civil rights violations reported in the enforcement of the Arizona immigration law. This is an invitation to legal chaos and a chance for lawyers (a major contributing block to Democrat campaign coffers) to increase their income dramatically. The article at reports that after the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the major item in Arizona’s immigration law the Obama Administration decided to retaliate.

The article at reports:

By the same token, Brewer recognized the threat implicit in the Department of Homeland Security’s decision to suspend cooperation with Arizona state authorities via 287(g) task force agreements. “This continued assault on the state of Arizona in regards to illegal immigration has been totally unfortunate,” Brewer said. “The bottom line is that the feds need to step up and do their job and secure our border so we can work on other issues that are a result of the borders not being secured.”

 Brewer was deeply upset at the new round of federal pressure on Arizona. “At every turn,” she said, “we see the federal government putting their finger down on other places … They rescinded the 287(g) for all law enforcement in the state of Arizona immediately after this ruling came out. They’re taking away the ability for us to work hand in hand with ICE. So now instead of being able to access the [citizenship] database we’re going to have to call in and go through ICE to verify if somebody’s illegally in the state or not. That’s an assault on Arizona. And it was only rescinded in the State of Arizona.”

This is more Chicago thuggery from the Obama Administration. The Obama Administration puts politics and pettiness ahead of protecting American citizens. They need to be shown the door in November!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Tax Changes In Obamacare

On Friday the Weekly Standard posted an article about the impact of Obamacare on the Tax Code. The article quotes a Treasury Department that describes Obamacare as “represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years and affects millions of taxpayers.” The report further states that Obamacare’s “new taxes, fees, and penalties account for approximately $438 billion.” 

That is a conservative estimate.

The article reports:

…that $438 billion in new taxes, fees, and penalties on Americans and American businesses is just the tally through 2019 — at which point Obamacare would really have been in effect for only six years (2014-19), not the ten years that are the norm for government scoring.  On an annual basis, Obamacare’s taxes, fees, and penalties (according to that same official estimate) would increase from $48 billion in 2014 to $88 billion in 2019, rising between 9 and 26 percent per year (depending upon the year) — with no end in sight.

The article points out that the only job creation due to Obamacare is in the IRS.

I would like to remind everyone at this point that Obamacare was passed without one single Republican vote. The Republicans were given no input into the bill at all. Had the Obamacare bill included such things as tort reform and portability of insurance across state lines, we might not be anxiously awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling on the current monstrosity.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Mixed Decision On The Arizona Immigration Law

The U.K. Daily Mail posted a story today on the the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold part of Arizona’s immigration law and to strike down other parts.

The article reports:

Governor Jan Brewer of Arizona  hailed the immigration verdict as a victory because it  cleared the way for the officials to start enforcing a provision that allows law enforcement officers,  when making lawful stops, to check the immigration status of people.
The Supreme Court struck down the part of the law that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to apply for jobs or to not carry immigration papers. It also struck down a provision that gave the police authority to arrest immigrants for crimes that may lead to deportation.
I am not a lawyer, but I fail to see the logic in what the Court decided to strike down. It should be a state crime illegal immigrants to apply for jobs–they are illegal! Shouldn’t immigrants be arrested for crimes period? (Just like any American citizen would be.)
The article also reports:

In a blistering 22-page opposition to the ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:  ‘to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia wrote. “If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State’

He charged that the Obama administration ‘desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers’ and accused federal officials of ‘willful blindness or deliberate inattention’ to the presence of illegal immigrants in Arizona.

I agree with Justice Scalia.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Fact-checker Must Have Been On Vacation That Day

On Friday, Newsbusters posted a fact-check on a Washington Post article that claimed that Mitt Romney got rich by sending jobs overseas while he was at Bain Capital. The story in the Washington Post was a good political story–it just wasn’t true.

These are the actual facts from Newsbusters:

 (Example 1) … What CSI (Computer Software Inc.) actually did was provide U.S. software developers with technical support and sales. Example: It provided domestic outsourcing — which is different than overseas offshoring — for call centers and help desks. As far as its international business goes, CSI was reseller of U.S. software in European markets. In other words, they helped distribute U.S. software around the world.

(Example 2) … overseas call centers in the WaPo story (relating to Stream International Inc.) were based in Europe and Japan, and serviced international customers of U.S. companies in their local languages.

(Example 3) … what Modus Media did was help companies like Microsoft and IBM sell their products internationally. Products destined for American consumers were manufactured here at home.

(Example 4) … GT Bicycles had overseas suppliers before Bain invested in the company.

(Example 5) … (printed circuit board manufacturer) SMTC wasn’t even acquired until months after Romney left Bain Capital. Is Romney running for president or is Bain?

(Example 6) … (computer chipmaker and tester) Chippac was purchased in March 1999, a month after Romney left Bain Capital. Prior owner was Hyundai, a South Korean company that already had factories in Asia at the time of sale. So buying a company with foreign factories is the same, apparently, as “shipping jobs overseas,” according to the Washington Post.

Pay attention–we are definitely in the midst of the silly season.



Enhanced by Zemanta

When Government Needs Money It Abandons Common Sense

On Friday Hot Air  reported that in 2011 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined auto fuel producers $6.8 million in penalties for not blending gasoline with cellulosic ethanol, an environment-friendly distillate of wood chips, corn cobs, and switch grass. Why are the oil companies not blending the gasoline with cellulosic ethanol–because it is not yet commercially available! The oil companies are being fined for not using a fuel that does not yet commercially exist. Obviously these fines add to their costs. The oil companies then pass those extra costs on to the consumer. Simply amazing! 

Please follow the link above to Hot Air and read the story. It is another examply of why we need less government and more common sense. The problem is not the oil companies–it’s the government.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Unnoted Side Effects Of Iran Going Nuclear

There are three sources for this article–the Wall Street Journal on January 16, 2012, a blog entitled Infowars on March 23, 2012, and the June 22, 2012, update of the Hal Lindsey report.

One of the problems with Iran‘s continued progress toward obtaining a nuclear weapon (and a delivery system) is the impact their possession of nuclear weapons will have on the Middle East. The focus has been on Israel because Iran has stated its intention to destroy Israel, but there is more to the story. Some Arab nations in the area are simply not interested in being part of Iran’s caliphate. Saudi Arabia is one of those nations. The logical way to avoid being threatened by Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons is to have nuclear weapons of your own. At this point I would like to note that it has been an open secret for a number of years that Israel had nuclear weapons. Please note that none of the Arab nations felt threatened by that fact.

Meanwhile, in January of this year, Iran began secret negotiations with China. The basic agreement that followed guaranteed China free flowing oil until 2035 regardless of any market shortages. In exchange, Saudi Arabia receives Chinese Dong Feng 21 medium-range missiles. Saudi Arabia also paid China $60 billion dollars as part of the package.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The deal, signed Sunday, sets a legal framework that strengthens scientific, technological and economic cooperation between Riyadh and Beijing, according to a joint statement. It seeks to enable cooperation in areas like maintenance and development of nuclear power plants and research reactors, manufacturing and supply of nuclear fuel elements.

The pact with China is the fourth nuclear agreement signed by Saudi Arabia following similar deals with France, Argentina and South Korea. The signing came at the end of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s first trip to Saudi Arabia as part of a six-day tour to the Middle East.

The Gulf state has also been in discussions with the U.S., U.K., Russia and the Czech Republic over better cooperation in nuclear energy.

The article at Infowars reminds us:

In 1973, a deal was struck between Saudi Arabia and the United States in which every barrel of oil purchased from the Saudis would be denominated in U.S. dollars. Under this new arrangement, any country that sought to purchase oil from Saudi Arabia would be required to first exchange their own national currency for U.S. dollars. In exchange for Saudi Arabia’s willingness to denominate their oil sales exclusively in U.S. dollars, the United States offered weapons and protection of their oil fields from neighboring nations, including Israel.

By 1975, all of the OPEC nations had agreed to price their own oil supplies exclusively in U.S. dollars in exchange for weapons and military protection.

This petrodollar system, or more simply known as an “oil for dollars” system, created an immediate artificial demand for U.S. dollars around the globe. And of course, as global oil demand increased, so did the demand for U.S. dollars.

As the demand for U. S. dollars decreases, so does the American economy.

The article at Inforwars points out:

If Saudi Arabia chooses to sell oil in a currency other than the U.S. dollar, most of the rest of the oil producing countries in the Middle East would surely do the same rather quickly.

And we have already seen countries in other parts of the world start to move away from using the U.S. dollar in global trade.

The global community has not successfully dealt with the Iranian nuclear program, and I seriously doubt that they are going to be able to. Because of that we will see the nations of the Middle East begin to enter into an arms race in order to be able to defend themselves. This really does not auger good things for the future of America or the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday Night At The Movies

Tonight my husband and I went to see the movie “Bernie” (the link is to the movie trailer). The movie was made by an independent film company and is showing in small theaters around the country. It is well worth seeing. It is a dark comedy. The movie is based on a true story and represents a true moral dilemma. I strongly recommend it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Syrian Warning To NATO

The BBC posted an article today confirming that the Syrian military had shot down a Turkish F-4 Phantom jet that Syria claimed had strayed into Syrian airspace over Syrian waters.

The article reports:

A spokesman said the plane, an F-4 Phantom, was dealt with “according to the laws that govern such situations”, the state news agency Sana said.

The Turkish prime minister said his country would “take the necessary steps” once all the facts were known.

Meanwhile, the violence in Syria continues and escalates.

I have no answers for Syria–some of the people rebelling are as bad if not worse than the people in charge. We need to make some effort to protect the innocent civilian population, but I am not convinced that we should want to help arm the rebels or support them in any way.

The little news analysis block next to the news story stated:

The tone of the Syrian statement was strictly factual, and there was no expression of regret. If the plane did indeed violate Syrian airspace, that, and the apparent ease with which it was shot down, will be a considerable embarrassment to the Turkish government.

Hezbollah‘s TV station in Lebanon, al-Manar, which was among the first to report the incident, described it as “a clear message to Nato” about the perils of outside military intervention in the Syrian crisis.

I have no idea what it will take to bring peace and stability to Syria. I just hope that there is someone with some degree of power who does.

Enhanced by Zemanta