Yesterday, Fox News reported that today a delegation from Iran will be traveling to the U.S. to participate in the Futurallia International Business Development Forum.

The article reports:

“Mohammad-Reza Sabzalipour, director of the Iranian World Trade Center, who announced this news to a group of reporters, said: “A sixteen-person delegation comprised of private sector Iranians has been invited by the U.S. to attend this three-day conference in Kansas City. Eight hundred trade delegations from thirty countries are expected to participate. This Forum can set the stage and provide the necessary groundwork for the development of international trade and business relations for Iran‘s private sector.””

The first thing to keep in mind here is that the private sector of Iran is heavily infiltrated by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the elite military troops of Iran. 

The U. S. currently has trade sanctions on Iran, but in spite of that the Obama administration has allowed the State Department to issue visas to this group and to host the delegation in the United States. 

The article further reports:

“This is in addition to the recent secret meeting in Dubai between officials from the Obama administration and the Iranian delegates sent by President Ahmadinejad! According to reports from Iran, in late January/early February, a group calling itself “a trade association” — all of its members belong to security forces close to Ahmadinejad — traveled to Dubai where they held clandestine meetings with two American officials with political and military connections.”

This is ridiculous.  Either we support economic sanctions or we don’t.  If we don’t, why not just say so and take whatever flak ensues?  If we honestly believe we can impact Iran’s nuclear program with sanctions, then we need to enforce the sanctions–not invite in trade delegations.

As I said before, there are very close ties between the business community in Iran and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard.  It is very foolish to let this delegation into the United States.  Do we honestly believe that if we sent a business delegation to Iran, there would not be CIA operatives in it?  Why don’t we understand that the street goes both ways?

A picture is worth a thousand words.  This picture comes from John Hinderaker at Power Line.  He posted it yesterday.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act spent nearly a trillion dollars.  What did it do?  It destroyed a net of more than one-half million jobs.  The article at Power Line points out:

“…goods-producing industries have completely failed to benefit from ARRA and the Obama administration’s other misguided policies.”

The policies of the Obama Administration have done more to prolong the recession and destroy private industry in America than they have to foster economic recovery.  It’s time they stopped blocking the policies that would allow the American economy to grow again.  Not only do I support drill, baby, drill, I want to see all regulations examined and eliminated in the places where the government has overstepped its bounds.

This is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

According to Examiner.com the Indiana Supreme Court wrote the following in a decision handed down by the the majority on the court:

“a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.  We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily excalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

This is not a comforting decision.  If the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution can be whimsically thrown under the bus, are the other amendments safe? 

This is a link to a YouTube video where Herman Cain answers the question, “What is the proper role of government?” in 44 seconds (that includes the time the person asking the question takes to ask it).  First of all, do you know any current politician who could answer any question in 44 seconds?  Second of all, listen to his answer.  I think we need to take a really good look at this man as a presidential candidate.

Yesterday’s New York Post posted an article quoting Senator Orrin Hatch, senior Senator from Utah, on the Hugh Hewitt show, “The Democrats, he said, “play politics very, very tough, they play it well, and they don’t give a damn about what’s right and what’s wrong.”

Unfortunately, that has become very obvious because of recent events, both in states and on the federal level.

The article cites recent events in Wisconsin:

“Blindsided last fall by the election of Gov. Scott Walker, the loss of both houses of the legislature and the US Senate seat held by ultraliberal Russ Feingold, the Democrats have simply refused to accept defeat and instead are continuing the fight by any means necessary.”

When Governor Walker proposed and passed legislation to limit the collective bargaining power of public-sector unions, threats and intimidation of legislators and citizens who supported the legislation followed.  In other states, where the Democrats were in control of the legislature, the passing of similar legislation got barely a whimper of protest.  The attack was clearly aimed at the Republican governor and Republicans in the legislature–not the issue.

Meanwhile, Boeing aircraft is under attack for wanting to open a new assembly plant in South Carolina.  The National Labor Relations Board is blocking the efforts of the company because South Carolina is a right-to-work state and Washington state, where other Boeing assembly lines are located, is a unionized state.  Last week, the Democrats in Congress held show trials for oil executives in order to divert attention from their own failure to put together a framework for domestic energy independence.  This does nothing to solve the country’s energy problem.

This is not politics as usual.  There is an element of intimidation and misuse of power here that is inappropriate in a democracy.  This is a time in our history when we desperately need leadership–not thuggery

The quote “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican,” described as the Eleventh Commandment of Ronald Reagan was not actually written by Ronald Reagan.  It was actually the work of California Republican Party Chairman Gaylord Parkinson.  Yesterday on “Meet the Press”, Newt Gingrich broke that commandment in a way that will cost Republicans in Congress and cost Newt in his quest for the presidency.

Byron York at the Washington Examiner commented on the incident this morning on Bill Bennett’s “Morning in America” radio show. 

The article reports:

“Republicans are particularly angry about the timing of Gingrich’s “Meet the Press” remarks because they came the day before Ryan was scheduled to make a high-profile defense of his budget plan in a speech in Chicago.  Gingrich’s attack, those Republicans say, makes it much easier for Democrats to attack Ryan, too.”

Aside from the fact that the statement made on “Meet the Press” contradicts earlier remarks he had made previously on the “Morning in America” show ( “Paul Ryan has stepped up to the plate,” Gingrich said.  “This is a very, very serious budget and I think rivals with [what] John Kasich did as budget chairman in getting to a balanced budget in the 1990s, just for the scale and courage involved…”).  That sort of inconsistency is not acceptable in a presidential candidate.

As a country we desperately need a solution to our spending and debt problems.  Paul Ryan has studied the federal budget for years and has come up with a very workable solution.  It would be a shame to have a Republican with presidential ambitions give Democrats the ammunition to fight that plan.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story yesterday about the failure of the Democrats in Congress to put forth a budget proposal.  The article reports:

“With the statutory committee deadline having been missed by six weeks, and with 744 days gone by since the Democrat-led Senate passed a budget, it was reported that this week Senate Democrats would finally produce a budget and hold a markup.  But no budget was produced and the markup was delayed yet again. … [Ranking member Jeff] Sessions summarized the “big problem” facing Democrat leaders during a joint interview with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan on Greta Van Susteren: “they cannot bring forth a budget their members support that the American people will support, and they understand that, they know that, and they’ve got a big problem.” …”

Unfortunately we have already entered into the ‘silly season’ for the 2012 election.  It is easier for the Democrats to criticize Republican proposals than to actually come up with a proposal of their own. 

The article further reports:

“…The Hill reported that Senator Conrad shifted the Senate Democrat budget further to the left as a result, coupling every dollar of savings with a dollar in higher taxes – even as the President asserted his so-called framework would achieve three dollars in savings for every one dollar in cuts, albeit a claim that is not borne out by the numbers. …”

When you vote in 2012, consider which Congressmen had the courage to make proposals and which Congressman were more interested in political gain.  If we can’t cut spending with the current Congress, they need to be unelected and a new Congress formed.

Yesterday the New Orleans Times-Picayune posted a story about President Obama’s announcement that he plans to expand domestic oil production.

The article reports:

“In his weekly radio address, the president also said he was directing the Department of Interior to hold annual lease sales in Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve and to speed up the evaluation of potential oil and gas resources in the mid- and south-Atlantic and to develop new incentives for industry to tap unused leases on and offshore.”

Before you break out the champagne, here are some comments from two Louisiana Congressman who are experienced in dealing with President Obama’s energy policies:

“…Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., who has been among the administration’s severest critics on drilling issues.

“”It’s very encouraging to see the president pick up where he left off before the oil spill by expanding domestic production. That is exactly what we need to increase supply and create jobs,” Landrieu said. “I’m also encouraged that this administration is finally going to grant lease extensions to the leases in the Gulf affected by the moratorium.”

“But, she added, “drilling permits are still slow in coming. I urge the president to push his team to speed up the process.”

“Sen. David Vitter, R-La., dismissed the president’s moves as more tactical than meaningful.

“”I’m afraid this will be all show and little or no substance,” Vitter said. “He’s clearly reacting to the price at the pump and trying to pre-empt and block our much bolder efforts in Congress as his election approaches. We all just need to keep pushing very hard — keep the pressure up.”

“A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, described Obama’s initiatives as “not terribly substantial,” but said that “the president just conceded what his party on Capitol Hill still denies: More American energy production will lower costs and create jobs.””

I am definitely skeptical about seeing increased domestic oil production during President Obama’s administration.  I am not the only person who is skeptical.  Yesterday’s Los Angeles Times reports:

“”The president is finally admitting what Republicans have known all along — that increasing the supply of American energy will help lower prices and create jobs,” Rep. Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said in a written statement. “One weekend address announcing minor policy tinkering, while positive, does not erase the administration’s long job-destroying record of locking up America’s energy resources.””

Keep watching this.  It will be interesting to see when and if permits get approved.

The article below is written by Len Mead.  It is the story of the Secure Communities Program in Massachusetts.

Northborough Tea Party Crushes Bogus PR Delaying Tactics

of MA Governor to Implement “Secure Communities”

To Conservative friends and local media,

 Here in Democrat “Taxachusetts” it’s rare that conservatives can beat well-organized and well-funded Democrat PR tactics.  But chalk up one for the conservatives who just want protection from illegal criminals! 

 A bogus delaying tactic by empty suit governor Patrick Deval to implement a federally mandated program to protect citizens from illegal criminals, called “Secure Communities,” has been temporarily crushed by the tenacity of the unwashed Northborough Teaparty patriots lead by John  O’Mara, Ralph Belmore, “Iron” Mike Farquhar and many other concerned conservatives. 

 As quick background for some of you out-of-state readers, “Secure Communities” is a very simple new data-transmission step that could catch millions of illegal criminals when they are arrested by local police — whether for rape, murder, or even a tail-light out on their unregistered vehicle being driven by an unlicensed (illegal) driver!  Now, when local police arrest someone in 42 states using the Secure Communities program, the police automatically fingerprint the individual and the prints are sent over the internet to the FBI AND ICE,  (US Immigration and Customs Enforcement).  With prints going to ICE, it’s quickly possible for the locally arrested individual to be also identified as an illegal alien by ICE so the rapist or murderer can be retained and deported.  BUT NOT IN MASSACHUSETTS!

Why?

Because illegals are all possible dependent  Democrat VOTERS if somehow the Obama regime can ram through amnesty!  And as Obama’s best empty-suit buddy, MA Governor Patrick Deval has surely been told – just delay implementing Secure Communities until you have to (by 2013 AFTER THE ELECTION!) and maybe we can get them the vote thru amnesty and generate another 12 million Democrat Dependent votes for more hand-outs, food stamps, welfare, and other programs only WE, the sweet, lovable Democrats promise to give them.

 Soooo, Patrick Deval, our Governor, cooks up a “listening tour” of many public meetings to get “input” before “rushing” to protect the safety of state citizens by implementing Secure Communities.  (Don’t want to lose valuable Democrat votes by DEPORTING THEM!)  Thus, these meetings have given  vent to organized union-backed “protests” of how deporting identified illegals breaks up families, stops crime reporting, is racist, sexist, bigoted and homophobic (whoops -sorry – got carried away). The liberal media was supposed to have a field day “exposing” conservatives as heartless with these sound bites.

Because of the tenacity of Tea Party Patriots to blitz these meetings and explain simply how bogus they are, how they are just a PR delaying tactic and how dangerous it is to not immediately use the simple tool of allowing prints of locally arrested individuals to ICE so they can possibly be identified as illegals and deported, the last public meeting in Brockton, MA ended with a whimper – no megaphone screeching union and “minority” crowds showed up!  Only conservatives (with a few hard core exceptions).

 For Deval – now on to the next faux “delay” tactic. 

 But for the moment,  the phony public meetings for community “input” (“We are not illegals – we are just undocumented workers who don’t want our families broken up . . . .“ ) have thankfully come to an end.  The poor liberal media can only await Deval’s next tactic to “report” how heartless conservatives just want to break up families, just fear that the skin color of immigrants is “different” and that they speak a different language . . . etc etc etc.

For you with die-hard interest, here are a few links for details on this event: http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2011/05/14/brockton-the-mob-stayed-home/ and Illegal Immigration in general :  http://www.cis.org/illegal

Thank you, Len, for the story.

On Friday, CNS News posted a story about the 2011 Annual Report from the Medicare Board of Trustees.  The report stated what many of us have suspected since the passage of Obamacare–the savings claimed in Obamacare are not guaranteed and may, in fact, be fictional.  The report states:

“Also unknown is how effective the significant federal health legislation enacted in 2010 will be at moderating cost growth for Medicare. If the legislation’s cost-reducing innovations in the delivery of and payment for health services were not successful, or if health care providers could not accommodate the slower growth in Medicare payment rates mandated by the new law, Medicare costs would be significantly higher than shown in the Trustees Report.he effects of these endeavors on Medicare’s costs are yet to be determined. Also unknown is how effective the significant federal health legislation enacted in 2010 will be at moderating cost growth for Medicare. If the legislation’s cost-reducing innovations in the delivery of and payment for health services were not successful, or if health care providers could not accommodate the slower growth in Medicare payment rates mandated by the new law, Medicare costs would be significantly higher than shown in the Trustees Report.”

In other words, we have been sold a bill of goods that Obamacare will reduce healthcare costs. 

The article at CNS News states:

“ObamaCare purports to reduce health care costs in two main ways: by forcing providers to implement efficiencies in the short term through gradual and predictable reductions in Medicare payments and by instituting broader health care delivery reforms over the long term. The Medicare Trustees report casts doubt on both approaches.

“In the case of the short-term payment reductions, the Trustees report says that they are likely to cause hospitals to lose substantial amounts of money, forcing them to shift costs onto non-Medicare patients or simply refuse to treat Medicare recipients.”

I live in Massachusetts where we have what the Democrats are referring to as “Romneycare,” which is supposedly what Obamacare is based on.  Because the media is trying to get Romney out of the Republican primary, they are now running stories about the problems Romneycare has caused.  Last week our local paper ran a story about the fact that more than half of primary care physicians in Massachusets are no accepting new patients.  Waits for office visits are longer, and many people are using emergency rooms because they cannot get in to see a doctor.  Meanwhile the cost to the consumer is skyrocketing.  This is a preview of what Obamacare will be like when it is fully in place.  We truly need to repeal it now, before it is too late.

America is a free country, and Americans are free to invest their savings and wealth anywhere they choose to invest it.  However, the government is supposed to be a marketplace neutral entity that has some sort of fiscal responsibility.  Needless to say, that works in theory, but not always in practice.  But every now and then, someone decides to attempt to change the practice and bring it more into line with the theory.  That happened recently.

CNS News reported Friday that Representative Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) is introducing a bill in Congress that will end energy subsidies in certain areas of the energy market. 

The article points out:

“Pompeo, a freshman who worked with the natural gas industry before being elected to Congress, said he believes in the industry and is an advocate of expanded domestic development.

“”What we don’t need to do is use our tax code to subsidize them and pick them and favor them,” Pompeo said.

“He said that the free market works well and if allowed to work without restriction in the energy marketplace, the best energy resources and technologies will emerge.

“”If we will just knock away the barriers, if we get rid of the regulatory impediments, we’ll create the next great American energy,” Pompeo said.

“In a May 11 letter to congressional colleagues, Pompeo said that in 2009 the federal government spent $18 billion on energy subsidies.”

There are a number of interesting aspects of this bill.  First of all, Representative Pompeo is a freshman Congressman.  He hasn’t been in Washington long enough to be part of the status quo.  Secondly, he has experience in the natural gas industry and knows what he is talking about.  I have no idea what Representative Pompeo’s relationship with the Tea Party is, but it seems to me that he is the kind of candidate they (and everyone else) should be promoting.  He does not seem to be a professional politician, he has common sense, and he has business experience.  Washington needs Congressmen who understand business and are willing to do what they can to pass sensible laws that promote economic growth in America–not Congressmen who want to determine who prospers and who does not.

On Thursday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article analyzing the experiences of other countries with previous debt problems to see which solutions worked and which solutions didn’t work.

The Power Line article cites a report released by the Republican staff of the Senate Budget Committee.  The introductory paragraph to that report reads as follows:

The federal debt held by the public has doubled, in nominal terms, in less than four years. It now stands at over 62 percent of GDP, the highest level since 1951. What costs does this place on our economy? With our fragile economy still suffering high unemployment, can we risk attempting to slow the accumulation of more debt by reducing government spending? This paper examines these questions by surveying the available literature and empirical evidence regarding the economic effects of government debt and spending reductions on economic growth.

The available evidence shows that:

1) a national debt crisis could result in economic collapse;

2) our high national debt already imposes sustained economic costs;

3) our growing debt can be slowed by immediate reductions in government spending;

4) reductions in federal spending, as part of successful fiscal consolidations, have demonstrably led to economic growth

5) fiscal consolidations focused on spending cuts are far more successful than those relying on tax increases and those that evenly combine tax increases and spending cuts.

The report also points out that the evidence gathered shows that the successful way to climb out of a growing deficit is with spending cuts rather than additional taxes.

One aspect of growing debt is the interest that needs to be paid on that debt.  The article at Power Line posted the chart below:

This is the equivalent of paying the minimum balance on your credit cards every month as the credit card companies happily keep adding interest to your balance every month.  It does not work in a household budget, and it does not work for the government.

Does anyone honestly believe that if more money flowed into Washington, that money would actually be used to pay down the deficit rather than to increase spending?   There have already been rumblings that if Congress can cut the tax breaks given to oil corporations, that money will be given to ‘green energy’ companies.  It won’t be used to pay down the deficit, which is what we were told originally.

IT’S THE SPENDING, STUPID!!!!!!

Fox News reported yesterday that two men, Ahmed Ferhani, a 26-year-old of Algerian descent, and Mohamed Mamdouh, a 20-year-old of Moroccan descent, were arrested in New York City this week for plotting to attack New York synagogues dressed as Hasidic Jews.  The two were arrested in a sting operation where they were sold weapons to carry out their assualt and then taken into custody.

The story is also reported in the UK Mail Online, which stated:

“In an unusual move, the pair were being charged by New York state, not federal prosecutors. Vance said there were four counts under terrorism and hate crimes laws.  The charges carry a potential penalty of life in prison.

“The pair will appear in criminal court in lower Manhattan today, and are likely to face state terrorism rather than federal charges, the New York Post reported.

“It is understood the joint FBI-NYPD anti-terrorism task force were aware of the investigation, but chose not to become involved.

“The case is the first of its kind since U.S. Navy SEALs killed Bin Laden at his Abbottobad compound in Pakistan.

“New York City was placed on high alert immediately after the raid on May 1, with the NYPD and Port Authority putting extra officers on train stations, airports and the subway.

“After Bin Laden’s death, CIA director Leon Panetta said: ‘Though Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is not.  The terrorists almost certainly will attempt to avenge him, and we must – -and will – remain vigilant and resolute.'”

These men were going to go into a synagogue dressed as Hasidic Jews and start killing innocent people.  If they are tried on state charges rather than federal charges, they will not be subject to the death penalty.  I think that is a serious error in judgment.  We have proven cases of Muslims in jail aiding terrorist operations.  Do we need more?

As I have said before, the problem with the internet is that once you say something publicly, it can be looked up by anyone under any circumstances.  Well, here we are again.

Your Jewish News has reported that Eboo Patel, President Obama’s faith advisor, in an October 2009 article in a Newtopia Magazine, stated:

“The problem is that we live in a time when the Muslim totalitarians are dominating. Why? Because they are building powerful institutions that propagate their interpretation of Islam – just as the Christian totalitarians in America have powerful institutions; and the Jewish totalitarians in Israel have powerful institutions…:

This a statement from a faith advisor?  The article reports:

“WND (WorldNetDaily) reported last week Patel blasted what he called the “myths” of America – describing them as beliefs that the country is “a land of freedom and equality and justice.””

This is not an attitude I want in someone who is in a powerful position in America.  I know there are injustices and inequality in America, but they are surely less frequent that in the Muslim countries Mr. Patel sees as ideals.

The article reports:

“In February 2010, Obama named Patel to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

“Patel, a Muslim activist from Chicago, is the founder and executive director of Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, which says it promotes pluralism by teaming people of different faiths on service projects.”

I guess I am wondering exactly what a ‘Muslim activist’ is.  Would a ‘Christian activist’ or a ‘Jewish activist’ be named to that position?  I am also very concerned about the concept of Christian totalitarianism.  I happen to be a Christian.  I try to live my life as a Christian.  I would love to see the laws of America reflect Christian (or Judeo-Christian) values.  The founders of America set up the laws to reflect Judeo-Christian values.  However, I do not believe I am justified in murdering anyone because they do not agree with me. 

It is truly unfortunate that Mr. Patel is considered any sort of spiritual authority.

Yesterday John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line about President Obama’s attempt to require any company doing business with the federal government to report political donations of their officers and directors–not just those currently required by law, but those contributions to advocacy groups (which are not currently required).

When President Obama couldn’t get that legislation passed, in part because it is obviously unconstitutional, the Obama administration announced its intention to institute the same rule by executive order.  So far there has been no executive order, but there has been a response by Congress.

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer’s response to this potential law:

“The issue of contracting ought to be on the merits of the contractor’s application and bid and capabilities,” Mr. Hoyer said at his weekly press briefing. “There are some serious questions as to what implications there are if somehow we consider political contributions in the context of awarding contracts.”

Thank you, Representative Hoyer, for standing up for free speech and the ability to make political donations without having to worry how those donations would impact the success of your company.

A lot of the decisions made by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have turned out to be very wise when viewed through the lens of history.  I realize there hasn’t been a lot of history, but there has been enough to show us things we hadn’t thought of at the time.

On Tuesday, Forbes.com posted an article about President Obama’s dilemma regarding the future capture of any high-value terrorists. 

The article reports:

“In February, when the Senate Intelligence Committee asked CIA Director Leon Panetta where captured high-level al Qaeda leaders would be taken, he responded: “We would probably move them quickly into military jurisdiction at Bagram for questioning and then, eventually, move them probably to Guantanamo.” The administration refused to endorse Panetta’s position, but couldn’t provide an alternative. “I’m not going to speculate about what, you know, would happen if we were to capture Osama bin Laden,” was Press Secretary Jay Carney’s reply.”

The problem with Guantanamo is President Obama’s stated intention to close Guantanamo.  The President is not likely to want to move any prisoners there.  The problem with Bagram is that Afghan President Karzai has made it clear that U.S. detention facilities will close when the troops depart (that departure is scheduled to begin in July of this year).  Some captured terrorists have been turned over to American allies, but that also has its problems–some of our allies have released people that will pose a threat to America in the future.

The writer at Forbes concludes:

“But Gitmo is needed, especially when Bagram closes. One option is for the president to remodel and rename the base. Call it something like “Camp Rehabilitation and Justice, Liberty Bay Cuba,” and restore it to what it was meant to be in 2002: an important asset in fighting terrorism.

“Reconstituting Guantanamo, or coming up with a real alternative, is not just desirable but necessary. The death of Bin Laden marks a turning point in the war against al Qaeda, but that war is certainly not over. As a central part of finishing it, we need an effective system for holding, interrogating, and sorting terrorists. That way, pulling out of Afghanistan will be a cause for celebration, not headaches.”

The political left expected President Obama to close Guantanamo.  I am not sure renaming it will satisfy his supporters on the left.  It will be interesting to see what happens if we do capture any high-value terrorists as a result of the information seized when Osama Bin Laden was killed.

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article about the posturing currently going on regarding raising the debt ceiling.  House Speaker John Boehner has stated that the Republicans would only agree to raise the debt ceiling if spending cuts were put in place that totaled more than the amount of the debt ceiling hike.  White House Press Secretary Jay Carney has accused Speaker Boehner of holding the debt ceiling hostage, which Mr. Carney describes as “extremely unwise.”

Congress is expected to have to raise the debt ceiling within the next few months.  There are consequences if the debt ceiling is not raised, but there is a definite difference of opinion as to what those consequences are–the stated consequences range from simply forcing the government to prioritize its spending to a total collapse of the American financial system.  As usual, I suspect that the truth is somewhere in the middle.

This is the chart from usgovernmentspending.com showing government spending as a percent of the Gross Domestic Product.

We need to cut government spending.  Otherwise we will become a welfare state with a constant unemployment rate of 8 percent or above.  Putting conditions on raising the debt ceiling would be a beginning in getting spending under control.  Hopefully Congress and the President can come to an agreement on a plan.

Ann Barnhardt is justifiably angry after the hall where she was scheduled to speak in Massachusetts cancelled her presentation at the last minute.  Ms. Barnhardt is a very blunt speaker and evidently that is a problem.  She has posted the following on her website after the venue for her Sunday presentation in Massachusetts became unavailable:

“So, here is what I will do. I will record and deliver EXACTLY the same speech – word for word – that I was going to give in Boston on Sunday and post it on YouTube on Sunday. It will be about 30 minutes long, and I’ll split it into three parts. I will also post the text here for distribution. And then we shall see who EXACTLY is the hatemonger, and who EXACTLY is such a dangerous soul that their freedom of speech MUST be suppressed.”

Israel, Christendom and the Caliphate: It’s a Two-On-One Fight

ACTBoston presents free-speech warrior and Internet sensation

Ann Barnhardt

 Born in Kansas, raised on a farm, and now living and working in Colorado as a commodity broker, Ann Barnhardt is a shining example of the courage and conviction to follow.  Witnessing the mounting subjugation of free speech that masquerades as tolerance, Ann is now an outspoken advocate for our constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

As noted scholar Dr. Andrew Bostom stated, Ann’s recent excoriation of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s statement that “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war” is just the latest example of Ann’s passionate defense of free speech in America.

Ann’s YouTube video retort to Senator Graham “Have you not read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?” is quickly becoming a rallying cry for free speech warriors across the nation. http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/06/ann-barnhardt-culture-hero/. 

Israel, Christendom and the Caliphate: It’s a Two-On-One Fight

ACTBoston presents free-speech warrior and Internet sensation

Ann Barnhardt

 Born in Kansas, raised on a farm, and now living and working in Colorado as a commodity broker, Ann Barnhardt is a shining example of the courage and conviction to follow.  Witnessing the mounting subjugation of free speech that masquerades as tolerance, Ann is now an outspoken advocate for our constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

As noted scholar Dr. Andrew Bostom stated, Ann’s recent excoriation of Republican Senator Lindsey Graham’s statement that “Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war” is just the latest example of Ann’s passionate defense of free speech in America.

Ann’s YouTube video retort to Senator Graham “Have you not read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?” is quickly becoming a rallying cry for free speech warriors across the nation. http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2011/04/06/ann-barnhardt-culture-hero/. 

Take this opportunity to meet a true defender of your liberty.

For information email actboston@gmail.com

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported on the double standard involved in inviting poets to the While House.

In 2003 Laura Bush planned a night of reading the poetry of Emily Dickinson, Langston Hughes and Walt Whitman.  The event was cancelled when left-of-center poets protested and threatened to disrupt the event.  All of the poets mentioned above are classic American poets that are normally included in high school English classes (or at least they used to be).

Fast forward to 2011.  Michelle Obama is also doing poetry at the White House.  She has invited Chicago poet and rapper, Lonnie Rashid Lunn, Jr., AKA “Common.”  The Daily Caller posted a sample of Mr. Lunn’s poetry.  It includes death threats, a call to burn President Bush, and other uplifting items.  Some Americans, both on the right and the left, have protested this kind of trash poetry in the White House.  So far, Mr. Lunn is still invited.

Let me get this straight–Emily Dickinson is controversial, but killing people and Presidents is not?  It’s time to find a presidential candidate who represents the values of America.  I sincerely hope our current first family does not reflect the values of the majority of Americans. 

This story is one of the most amazing examples of chutzpah I have ever seen.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line quoted the following from a New York Times article:

“I Omar Ossama Binladin and my brothers the lawful children and heirs of the Ossama Binladin (OBL) have noted wide coverage of the news of the death of our father, but we are not convinced on the available evidence in the absence of dead body, photographs, and video evidence that our natural father is dead.”

The article points out that Al Qaeda thinks Osama Bin Laden is dead and that one of Osama Bin Laden’s daughters says that she witnesses his death (in the Islamic world, her opinion does not count because she is a woman), but that is not enough for Osama Bin Laden’s son.

The article at Power Line further reports on the comments of Omar Bin Laden:

“If OBL has been killed in that operation as President of United States has claimed then we are just in questioning as per media reports that why an unarmed man was not arrested and tried in a court of law so that truth is revealed to the people of the world.”

At the end of the article, we see the purpose of this complaint:

“Failure to answer these questions will force us to go to International forum for justice such as International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice and UN must take notice of the violation of international law and assist us to have answers for which we are lawful in seeking them. A panel of eminent British and international lawyers is being constituted and a necessary action may be taken if no answers are furnished within 30 days of this statement.”

So Omar Bin Laden is putting together a team of lawyers to go to International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice and the UN to charge America with violating international law in the killing of Osama Bin Laden.  Wow.  This is like the families of Bonnie and Clyde suing the Federal Bureau of Investigation after Bonnie and Clyde were tracked down and killed.  It will be educational to watch what happens with the complaint and coming lawsuit.

On Wednesday the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Rageh Ahmed Mohammed Al-Murisi, 26, tried to break into the locked cockpit of a flight bound for San Francisco on Sunday night. 

The article reports:

“Al-Murisi walked quickly to the front of the plane while shouting, “Allahu akbar,” tried the cockpit door handle and then rammed the door with his shoulder, prompting a flight attendant to yell, “I need help – now!” witnesses said.

“Other flight attendants, retired San Mateo police Officer Larry Wright, a retired Secret Service agent, an off-duty American Airlines pilot, and Olympic shot put champion Bill Nieder jumped from their seats to help subdue him.

“Nieder, 77, of Angels Camp (Calaveras County), who won the gold medal in Rome in 1960, said, “My thought was he was trying to get into the pilots’ area. It happened so quick I didn’t have time to be scared.””

Mr. Al-Murisi obviously picked the wrong set of passengers to try to do harm to anyone on the plane.  Police Officer Wright stated that he believed that Mr. Al-Murisi was going to attempt to crash the plane.  Officer Wright also stated that after the twin towers fell, he swore to himself that he would never be a victim.

Homeland security is a good idea, but in the end it will be the people at the site of an attack that will make the difference.  The article points out that Mr. Al-Murisi carried no luggage.  I realize that it is not a crime to board a plane without luggage, but I wonder if he should have been looked at more closely when he boarded.  Again, it was the passengers who kept themselves safe.  Way to go!

The Daily Caller reports today that some Democrats do not agree with President Obama’s suggested policy that tax breaks for oil companies be ended and the money given to ‘green energy’ companies.  I thought ending the tax breaks (which all corporations are entitled to–not just oil companies) was to begin to pay down the deficit.  How naive of me. 

The article reports:

“New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez, a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, unveiled legislation Tuesday that would end tax breaks for the five largest oil companies — ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips, Chevron Texaco, and BP — and funnel the resulting revenue toward deficit reduction.”

The President’s plan was not to pay down the deficit–it was to reward his political cronies who have invested in ‘green energy.’  Has it occurred to anyone that if you raise taxes on oil companies, those taxes will be passed on to the consumer?  Just what we need–higher prices at the pump. 

The article further reports:

“It is not clear how exactly the money would go toward reducing the nation’s $1.4 trillion budget shortfall if Congress plans to increase spending through other tax credits anyway. A study published last year found that that since the post-World War II era, the federal government has spent $1.17 for every dollar it brought in, suggesting that in the long run increased revenues were never ultimately used for deficit reduction.

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who threw his support behind Menendez’s bill, confirmed that the Senate would vote on the measure within a week.”

I wonder how long it will take the American consumer to recover from the policies of the Obama administration.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was passed in 1996 and signed by then President Clinton.  The act states:

`No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’.

In simple terms, Tennessee does not have to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massachusetts. 

DOMA also states:

`In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’.

One of the things the Obama Administration has done lately is declare that it would not defend DOMA in court.  However, that does not change the fact that DOMA is currently the law of the land.  Meanwhile…

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported today:

“The Navy has abruptly reversed its decision to allow chaplains to perform same-sex marriages once the military’s ban on openly gay service members is lifted, after dozens of House lawmakers complained.

“Rear Adm. Mark Tidd, chief of Navy chaplains, issued a one-sentence memo Tuesday announcing that the earlier decision has been “suspended until further notice pending additional legal and policy review and inter-Departmental coordination.””

Why the change of course?  The article reports:

“…63 House members wrote to Navy Secretary Ray Mabus to object to the Navy’s initial ruling, saying the service was violating the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act by appearing to recognize and support same-sex marriages.”

Whoops.

This is a picture from the UK Mail Online:

The picture is of a smuggling tunnel that runs from Mexico to Arizona. 

This is a map from the same article showing the location of the tunnel:

The tunnel lies 15 feet beneath the ground and is three feet wide and five feet high.  The tunnel runs 250 feet under the US-Mexican border and is equipped with electricity, water pumps and ventilation.

The tunnel, one of many, is the work of Mexican drug cartels smuggling marijuana, cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines into the United States. 

There are a few things to note about this article.  There is obviously a lot of money in illegal drug trafficking in America.  That is a major part of the problem.  Who is using the drugs?  Why are they using the drugs?  Can they be retrained not to use drugs?  I am so old that there were no drugs in high school when I was there.  There was alcohol and a lot of kids drank on weekends, but it wasn’t a common problem.  What happened?  Is the problem the actual drugs or is the problem that we have so warped our values system that drug use is not seen as anything important?  I don’t know.  I guess my questions would be to those people buying the drugs, “Are you living the life you want to live?  What would it take for you to find something better to do with your life than take drugs?”

The tunnel is a concern because of the drug cartels and all that those cartels involve (violence, lawlessness, etc.), but it is also a national security concern.  It has been said by people who know such things that terrorists are in the process of making alliances with drug lords in order to get potential weapons across the border.  This tunnel is a nightmare on many levels.  I am glad the authorities discovered this tunnel.  I hope there is a way that we can discourage the building and use of such tunnels in the future.  I wonder if there is a substance we can put in the tunnels that will make them unusable.