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

The article quotes Senator DeMint:

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

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

Senator DeMint concludes:

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

I think this is a wonderful idea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK Telegraph reported on March 19 of this year:

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

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted its analysis of President Obama’s budget speech.  The speech was given in response to Paul Ryan’s budget plan to balance the budget.  Unfortunately it was a political speech, not a serious budget plan.

The Wall Street Journal reported:

“Mr. Obama did not deign to propose an alternative to rival Mr. Ryan’s plan, even as he categorically rejected all its reform ideas, repeatedly vilifying them as essentially un-American. “Their vision is less about reducing the deficit than it is about changing the basic social compact in America,” he said, supposedly pitting “children with autism or Down’s syndrome” against “every millionaire and billionaire in our society.” The President was not attempting to join the debate Mr. Ryan has started, but to close it off just as it begins and banish House GOP ideas to political Siberia.”

The Journal concluded:

“Mr. Obama ludicrously claimed that Mr. Ryan favors “a fundamentally different America than the one we’ve known throughout most of our history.” Nothing is likelier to bring that future about than the President’s political indifference in the midst of a fiscal crisis.”

The best way to understand the tax code is to see who is actually paying the taxes.

The above chart is from a site called American.com.  It is the website of the American Enterprise Institute.  The chart below from the same site shows the effect that lowering capital gains taxes had on the revenue generated from those taxes during the years 2002 to 2007.

Lowering taxes does raise revenue.  President Obama lied.  It’s that simple.

This may be a nothing story or it may be something we should be paying attention to.  I honestly don’t know, so I am just putting it out here.

Press TV reported today that the British Embassy in Tehran is closed until further notice.  Iran’s chargé d’affaires has recently tightened rules for visa issuance and instigated disputes and physical encounters between the people who were applying for visas and security personnel.

The article explains:

“The claimed security problem was enough for the people who were furious over irregularities to engage in physical encounters with the diplomatic police, the reports said.

“An unnamed embassy source also said that they have received text messages in which they are ordered not to return to work until further notice.

“Recently, there have been several reports of irregularities at the British embassy in Tehran, the last example of which was its refusal to issue entry visas for several Iranian private sector publishers who had applied for visas to attend the International London Book Fair.” 

I think if I were a diplomat there are places I would rather be stationed than Iran. 

Intelligence information is a major factor in the war on terrorism.  Knowing where the terror cells are and what the current plan of attack is can save many lives.  As much as the use of waterboarding on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed may have been controversial, it probably saved a lot of lives in America and in other countries.  Terrorists are trained not to talk and when they do talk to give misleading or incomplete information.  Waterboarding tended to break through that without doing any permanent damage to the person being waterboarded.  It was a very useful tool after 911 in finding out what Al Qaeda had in store for America.

About two weeks ago, Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story about the capture of Umar Patek in Pakistan.  Mr. Patek is a suspected member of the al-Qaida-linked militant group Jemaah Islamiyah.  He is beleived to have been the group’s deputy field commander in the nightclub bombings in Bali in 2002 that left 202 people dead, many of them foreigners.

The article states:

“Patek was one of the “last senior JI (Jemaah Islamiyah) commanders with significant experience” in the original Afghan al-Qaida camps and longstanding ties to the international jihadist network and its donors.”

Needless to say, this man has a lot of information that would be very helpful to American efforts to prevent terrorist attacks in this country and to learn about terrorist connections around the world.  So what happened next?

On Tuesday of this week, Fox News reported:

“In a statement, White House Spokesman Tommy Vietor told Fox News, “We have an interest in Patek and would hope that he could be brought to justice for his role in the 2002 Bali bombing. Working through the usual intelligence and law enforcement channels, we stand ready to assist our partners in whatever way we can.”

“Late Tuesday, a U.S. official confirmed to Fox News that the Pakistanis have been questioning Patek, and that the U.S. has sought access to him, but so far, that request has been denied.

“Unless there’s a change, Patek will be sent directly from Pakistan to Indonesia where he is expected to stand trial for the Bali bombing in October 2002.”

This is no way to run the war on terror.

Yahoo Finance posted an Associated Press story today about the meeting this week of the  world’s largest emerging economies in southern China.  The nations attending include the expanded five-member bloc known as the BRICS–Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.  This is not a block of countries that is particularly friendly to the United States.

The article points out:

“Though largely an ad-hoc grouping at present, the BRICS have the potential to emerge as a new force in world affairs on the back of their massive share of global population and economic growth. With the inclusion of South Africa, the group accounts for 40 percent of the world’s people, 18 percent of global trade and about 45 percent of current growth, giving them formidable heft when dealing with the developed economies.”

How are Russia and China emerging economies and the U.S. and European Union not? 

The article further states:

“”They need to decide whether to focus on boosting coordination among their members or simply representing emerging economies in their dealings with the developed nations,” Zhang said.

“Regardless of the outcome of such debates, the growth of the BRICS represents an important attempt to create new centers of influence and prevent domination of the world economic order by one or two major players, said South Africa’s ambassador to Beijing, Bheki Langa.”

Generally speaking, it has been concluded that the fastest way to create wealth is to allow private property ownership and to take crippling restrictions off businessmen.  Freedom tends to grow economies better than dictatorships and tyrants.  Unfortunately two of the major players in this group are countries where freedom is only a distant dream–not a way of life.

Marc Theissen posted an article in Monday’s Washington Post about the coming budget battles.  The article evaluates the spending cuts in the budget deal reached last week with the Republicans as a Republican victory.  Mr. Theissen’s logic is as follows:

“Republicans succeeded in forcing Obama to accept some of the largest spending cuts in history. Why? Because the president wisely recognized that the political landscape had changed dramatically since 1995. If Obama was confident voters would have blamed the GOP for a shutdown again, the government would be closed as you read this. Instead, the president caved.”

The writer then further argues that if President Obama was not willing to let the government shut down over $38.5 billion in cuts, he will not be willing to allow a cataclysmic government default. 

Mr. Theissen concludes:

“If negotiations stall, House Republicans could pass a series of small debt-limit increases, with spending cuts attached, to keep the government solvent. Obama would be in no position to veto such temporary measures — because his veto would cause the government to default. Republicans can keep doing this until Obama capitulates. In the end, the president will have little choice but to swallow whatever spending reforms the GOP demands.”

I really like the way this man thinks.  Mr. Theissen concludes:

“This is no time for Republicans to play small ball. In the debt-limit fight, the GOP enjoys a perfect storm of public support, political leverage and presidential weakness. This means Republicans have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something big. They must seize it. If Obama wants to raise the federal debt limit, the price should be the even deeper cuts and reforms proposed by Ryan – and a balanced budget amendment that would force Congress to implement them.”

I hope someone in the Republican leadership reads Marc Theissen in the Washington Post!

This is a game we saw the Democrats play after George W. Bush was elected President.  It’s called make the person who won the election’s life so miserable that they may never run for anything again.  The delays in allowing W to set up his cabinet and staff and the stalling on judicial nominations were a disgrace, but the Democrats got away with it so they had no incentive to change their behavior.

Hot Air posted an article on Monday (with updates) about the Wisconsin election in which conservative Justice David Prosser has defeated liberal challenger JoAnne Kloppenburg.  The problem in the election results has to do with the fact that Kloppenburg was initially declared the winner until the final vote tally was rechecked and it was noted that the votes from heavily Republican Waukesha county had not been included in the totals. 

Hot Air reports:

“Read Mark Blumenthal’s analysis at HuffPo(!) of how the new Waukesha numbers are more believable than the ones from election night and how the sort of recording error made by county clerk Kathy Nickolaus really isn’t all that unusual. His is the third statistical model to lend credence to the updated vote totals since they were announced. And if that’s not convincing enough, forget the statisticians and simply note that a paper in Brookfield — where the “missing” votes were “found” — actually published the correct vote total on election night. The votes were there all along, as tallied and reported by the City of Brookfield. The “error” came when Nickolaus forgot to include the updated numbers from the city in relaying her vote totals to the AP.”

The article also points out that county clerk Kathy Nickolaus also found it unusual that they were called in to canvass on Wednesday morning instead of the usual Thursday procedure.  Ms. Nickolaus made an honest mistake in not saving the data from Waukesha county and including it in the number given to AP.  However, the total votes tallied and reported on election night were correct.

There is no fraud here, but I suspect that we will be hearing about these events for a while.

Yesterday’s New York Times posted an article yesterday about Missouri’s Attorney General, Chris Koster, who has joined other attorneys general in challenging the central provision of Obamacare.  Attorney General Koster has filed a “friend of the court” brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, in Atlanta.  The article also points out that Attorney General Koster was formerly a Republican state legislator who switched to the Democrat party in 2007.

The Times reports:

“In Missouri, a ballot referendum aimed at nullifying the law was approved by nearly three to one last year, and the legislature recently passed resolutions urging Mr. Koster to join the legal challenges. The state’s lieutenant governor, a Republican, filed a lawsuit last year seeking to block the law.”

Obviously, Obamacare is not popular in Missouri.  The only other Democrat who has joined the lawsuit was Attorney General Buddy Caldwell of Louisiana, who later became a Republican. 

Meanwhile the Weekly Standard reported yesterday:

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

I don’t know what the future of Obamacare is.  I do know that the majority of Americans would like it repealed.  It would be nice if Congress would pay attention to the wishes of the American people.

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the “People’s Budget.”  The People’s Budget is a document put together by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of 76 liberal Democrats in the House.  This document was released just as President Obama prepares to release his budget plan.

The People’s Budget is the Democrat response to the budget suggested by Congressman Paul Ryan.  The Democrats claim that their plan will eliminate the deficit in ten years; Paul Ryan’s plan takes 25 years. 

The article explains how the Democrats plan to end the deficit:

“The caucus would create three new individual tax brackets for the highest incomes, topping out at 47 percent.  It would also raise the capital gains tax, the estate tax and corporate taxes.  It would create something called a “financial crisis responsibility fee: and a “financial speculation tax.”  And of course it would repeal the Bush tax cuts.”

The tax increases should not be a surprise:

“I’m as opposed to the high-end tax cuts today as I’ve been for years,” Obama said in a press conference on Dec. 7, 2010. “In the long run, we simply can’t afford them. And when they expire in two years, I will fight to end them, just as I suspect the Republican Party may fight to end the middle-class tax cuts that I’ve championed and that they’ve opposed.”

It is expected that the budget President Obama releases will repeal the Bush tax cuts.  It is not clear what new taxes the President will add.

Lest we forget, higher taxes place a drag on the economy; Democrats traditionally support raising taxes as a way to raise revenue; history shows that cutting taxes raises revenue and stimulates the economy.  This is not a time to raise taxes on anyone.

Tonight I had the privilege of hearing Andrew McCarthy, author of THE GRAND JIHAD, speak at Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts.   Mr. McCarthy is a very well informed speaker on the subject of jihad–he was the man who led the prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, in which a dozen Islamic extremists were convicted of conducting terrorism against the US, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a plot to bomb NYC landmarks.

He began his talk with a reference to an internal memorandum from the Muslim Brotherhood leadership in the United States to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.  This memorandum was uncovered in an investigation of a case by the federal government.  The memorandum showed that the Muslim Brotherhood in America described their purpose as a grand jihad aimed at the destruction of western civilization from within by sabotage.  He explained that the Muslim Brotherhood has been operating in this country in some form since the 1960’s.

Mr. McCarthy made the point that America’s focus has been on terrorism to the point that we have overlooked the ideology that fuels it.  The ideology represents a more profound threat than terrorism itself.  He pointed out that the first rule of law enforcement is to find out what motivates the criminals and who they are.  Because Americans are afraid of interfering with someone’s freedom of religion, we have been reluctant to do that.  He pointed out that one advantage of civilian trials for terrorists was that during those trials the nexus between ideology and terrorism was revealed.

Mr. McCarthy defined jihad as the struggle to rid the community of non-Islamic influences.  The goal of jihad is a global caliphate (Islamic State).  That goal can be achieved through violence (as Al Qaeda) or through infiltration of a government and gradually taking over the institutions of that government (Muslim Brotherhood).  The Muslim Brotherhood is not averse to terrorism, but sees it as only one weapon in their arsenal.

The axis of the Muslim Brotherhood movement is the mosque and neighborhood center.  The North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) has bought real estate for mosques and community centers in major cities throughout America.  NAIT is associated closely with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The most important Islamic organization in America is the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).   This group is made up of graduates of the Muslim Student Association, which began in America in the 1960’s.  Both the ISNA and the NAIT were unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation Case (in which several people were convicted of sending money to HAMAS).   Those convictions were handed down in 2008.  In 2009 when ISNA held its national convention, Valerie Jarad was the keynote speaker.  Evidently the convictions and naming of unindicted co-conspirators did not make an impression on our government.

After the peace deal that President Clinton brokered between Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rubin, a law was passed in America making it illegal to provide material support to designated terrorist groups.  One of the first designated groups was HAMAS.  Since the Muslim Brotherhood and their associated groups had supported HAMAS, they needed a new group without that past history.  The created the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and called it a civil rights group to protect the rights of Muslims.  They wanted to form a group that had legal acumen and was media savvy.  They succeeded.  As a ‘civil rights’ organization, CAIR generally has been given access to government agencies. 

In conclusion, Mr. McCarthy reminded us that there are many patriotic Muslims who are aiding law enforcement in providing information on terrorists and making an effort the reform the radical aspect of Islam.  He also told us that the report of Team B2 found in the book SHARIA, THE THREAT TO AMERICA has been given to Congress.

One thing I took away from hearing Andrew McCarthy speak was that the radical views of some of the leaders of the mosques do not necessarily reflect the views of those who attend the mosques.  However, we need to be aware that there are people around us that are working against a free America as we know it, and we need to stay informed about the nature of the threat.

Today’s Chicago Tribune reported that one Chicago school has outlawed lunches brought from home. 

According to the article:

“At his public school, Little Village Academy on Chicago’s West Side, students are not allowed to pack lunches from home. Unless they have a medical excuse, they must eat the food served in the cafeteria.”

The idea here is that the school cafeteria lunches are more nutritious and healthier than lunches packed at home.  Does anyone remember school cafeteria food? 

The article further states:

“Any school that bans homemade lunches also puts more money in the pockets of the district’s food provider, Chartwells-Thompson. The federal government pays the district for each free or reduced-price lunch taken, and the caterer receives a set fee from the district per lunch.

“At Little Village, most students must take the meals served in the cafeteria or go hungry or both. During a recent visit to the school, dozens of students took the lunch but threw most of it in the garbage uneaten. Though CPS has improved the nutritional quality of its meals this year, it also has seen a drop-off in meal participation among students, many of whom say the food tastes bad.”

If you read the first sentence of the above quote, your mind begins to wander to such things as campaign contributions and kickbacks, but that’s just idle thought–even in Chicago.  Hmmm.

It’s cheaper to send a child to school with a ham (I’m not sure peanut butter is allowed in school anymore) sandwich, a juice box, and a bag of chips than it is to buy a lunch for $2.25.  I think this is an unnecessary intrusion into role of the parents and it also represents a significant expense–more than $10 a week for children’s lunches.  I can understand not allowing soda to be brought into school for lunch, but I think the idea of banning homemade lunches is really over the top.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an editorial titled “The Tea Party’s First Victory.”  Not all of the conservatives are declaring victory, but let’s look at where we have been and where we are.

The editorial states:

“This is getting to be a habit. President Obama ferociously resists tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts–right up to the moment he strikes a deal with Republicans and hails the tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts as his idea. What a difference an election makes.”

The election of 2010 has changed the debate.  The Republicans (Tea Party members) control the House.  They do not have the Senate or the Presidency.  With that small majority they managed to change the discussion from how much we will increase spending to how much we will cut spending.

The editorial reports:

“Now the battle moves to the debt ceiling increase and Paul Ryan’s new 2012 budget later this year, and there are lessons from this fight to keep in mind. One is to focus on spending and budget issues, not extraneous policy fights. Republicans have the advantage when they are talking about the overall level of spending and ways to control it. They lose that edge when the debate veers off into a battle over social issues.”

I’m not sure I agree with that statement.  Is the funding of Planned Parenthood a social issue or a spending issue?  We need to keep in mind that according to Open Secrets, in the 2010 election cycle Planned Parenthood contributed $ 262,986 to Congressional Democrats and $2,000 to Congressional Republicans.  According to ABC News Planned Parenthood will receive $363 million in federal funding for the remainder of 2011.  The fact that organizations that receive federal funding can make campaign contributions is deeply troubling to me.

The Wall Street Journal makes a suggestion for future spending debates:

“We are not talking here about that hardy perennial, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that would easily become a lever for Democrats to push for higher taxes. Far better would be statutory limits on spending increases and debt as a share of GDP, sequesters that automatically cut spending if Congress exceeds those limits, supermajority rules for replacing those limits, and revisions of the budget baseline so that each year’s budget begins at last year’s spending levels, not with automatic increases.

“This is the kind of reform the public will understand is directly related to the debt limit, and one that Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama will find hard to oppose. Republicans should waste no time starting to explain their debt-limit terms, so voters also understand the GOP isn’t toying with default as a political ploy.”

It would be nice if both political parties could agree to this basic concept.

Yesterday France 24 reported that the Arab League has asked the UN Security Council for a no-fly zone over Gaza. 

The article states:

“…repeated Israeli air strikes have left at least 18 people dead since Thursday.”

The article reports:

“The flare-up came after an anti-tank missile fired from Gaza hit an Israeli school bus on Thursday, wounding two people, one of them critically.”

How skewed is the world when the objection is to a response by Israel to a Gaza missle aimed at a school bus.  Where is the outrage about targeting a school bus?

The opening paragraphs of the article state:

“Arab League chief Amr Mussa said on Sunday the organisation will ask the UN Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Gaza, which Israel has pounded with air strikes in response to rocket fire.

“Mussa told an emergency meeting of Arab League ambassadors that “the Arab bloc in the United Nations has been directed to ask for the convention of the Security Council to stop the Israeli aggression on Gaza and impose a no-fly zone.””

Why is it Israeli aggression when it is in response to rocket fire?

I am sure (yeah, right!) that any connection between these two events is purely coincidental, but the fact that they occurred in the same week is very interesting. 

Today’s Jerusalem Post reports:

“The militant wing of Islamic Jihad announced that it was committed to a ceasefire with Israel “so long as Israel fulfills its responsibility and stops attacks against the Palestinian people in Gaza.””

Yahoo News posted a Reuters story today stating:

“Israel said on Sunday its new Iron Dome interceptor had successfully protected two major cities from Palestinian rockets in the past few days, and other countries were already expressing interest.

“The long-anticipated shield was deployed last Sunday outside the Gaza Strip — days before the latest flare-up of fighting between Israel and Palestinian militants — and has achieved a perfect record, shooting down at least eight rockets in mid-air, officials said.”

I have a few questions about this.  Yahoo News reports:

“At least 120 rockets have been fired at southern Israel in the latest round of fighting, causing damage but no injuries. The two Iron Dome batteries, deployed near the cities of Ashkelon and Beersheba, are meant to shoot down only those rockets that will strike in designated areas.”

How is 120 rockets a ceasefire?  Furthermore, Yahoo News reports:

“The Obama administration had secured $205 million to help Israel with production and deployment of Iron Dome, but it has been held up. Israeli President Shimon Peres, who recently visited the United States, urged the Americans to free up the cash, an aide said.”

The Obama Administration has some very odd priorities on how it spends taxpayer money.  I should think investing in Israel’s defense might save us a lot of money in the long run.  Anyway, I would like to know who considers 120 rockets fired at a country a ceasefire.

Hot Air posted an article today about the targeting of an Israeli school bus with an anti-tank missile launched in Gaza. 

The article pointed out:

“Only a week ago, Hague’s office released a report on the world’s 26 worst human rights violators. Israel was in the report, along with 25 actual human rights abusers. If, as Hague says above, he has reports that Hamas deliberately targeted the school bus (which it did), then this is not a “despicable and cowardly act.” It is a human rights violation. It is a war crime. And yet, Hague doesn’t use that language to describe it. Why is that? Why is it that his office can slander Israel as a violator of Palestinian human rights, but it can’t call a war crime a war crime? The deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime. Hamas deliberately targeted a school bus full of children (it hoped).”

Hamas routinely targets civilians.  Sderot has been the target of random Kassam rocket attackes–between 2001 and January 2009, over 8,600 rockets were launched at the city.  On July 4, 2008, Arutz Sheva reported:

“The children of Sderot will soon be able to run for cover from rocket attacks, even on the playground.  The new bomb shelter will look playful, however.

“The city is in the final stages of building a playground that includes a tunnel for a quick escape from Kassam rocket barrages, reports the Sderot Media Center (SMC).

“According to construction manager Boaz Etzion, “The idea of the park is that when there is a Color Red [incoming rocket] alarm, the children can run quickly to safety in the tunnels.”

“…The escape tunnel, at a cost of 150,000 shekels ($46,000) is being built in the shape of a centipede to make it appear to be part of the playground and not like a bomb shelter.”

This is the behavior of Gaza before it becomes part of the state of Palestine.  Do we have any reason to believe that Hamas in Gaza will behave better if a state is declared?  Do we want to encourage this sort of behavior in a nation that wants to become a state?  This is not a cultural norm that will be a positive contribution to world peace or world culture.  Can we support it?

Today’s Washington Examiner reported  that just around midnight, the Senate and the House passed a six-day “bridge” bill to keep the government running while they draft the legislation that will keep the government running until the end of fiscal 2011 (September 2011). 

The Washington Examiner reports that the budget passed cuts spending $38.5 billion.  The Republicans originally wanted $61.5 billion, and the Democrats originally wanted $6.5 billion.

Just to put this agreement into perspective, CNS News reported today:

“The federal debt increased $54.1 billion in the eight days preceding the deal made by President Barack Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) and House Speaker John Boehner (R.-Ohio) to cut $38.5 billion in federal spending for the remainder of fiscal year 2011, which runs through September.” 

We really do need to get spending under control.

Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story today stating:

“Not all policy “riders” were struck. One provision in the final deal would ban the use of federal or local government funds to pay for abortions in the District of Columbia. A program dear to Boehner that lets District of Columbia students use federally funded vouchers to attend private schools also survived.”

Both of these riders are important for what they represent.  The Hyde Amendment is supposed to prohibit the use of federal funds to pay for abortion–the rider simply brings the District of Columbia under that law, but it reminds us that the Hyde Amendment needs to be restated on a regular bases.  The voucher program in the District of Columbia is a desperately needed program in a city with failing schools.  It needs to continue and can serve as an example for other cities with failing schools.

This is not a perfect deal, but the big fights are looming–raising the debt limit and the 2012 budget.  The budget proposed by Paul Ryan is a workable way to get spending under control and bring future entitlement spending into line.  Hopefully, that budget will be given serious consideration as we move forward.

Yesterday the New York Post posted an article about the speculation that the United States will declare a Palestinian state in September without Israel’s consent. 

The article reports:

“Abbas claims that the only item that needs to be finished on the way to statehood is for Israel to leave and delineate a border based on the 1949 armistice line.  Yet every document the Palestinians have signed with Israel since the 1993 Oslo Accords clearly states that declaring a state requires the agreement of both sides.

“To reach an agreement with Israel, Abbas would need to sign security arrangements, make concessions in Jerusalem and give up the Palestinian demand to flood Israel with Arab “refugees.”

“Abbas, however, is politically weak, and making such concessions would spell his doom.  So, instead, he relies on a plan devised two years ago by his prime minister, Salem Fayyed, to declare a state in 2011 regardless of any progress in talks with Israel.”

If this resolution moves forward, it has to go through the Security Council, where the United States has a veto.  A veto would create problems with America’s relationship with Arab nations, not vetoing the move would be a nightmare for peace in the Middle East.  I have no doubt that the first thing a Palestinian state would do would be to arm itself to the teeth and attack Israel.  Their past behavior makes this a real possibility.  That move will not produce peace in the Middle East.  The President needs to speak up now and say that he will veto any move by Palestine to become a state without completing negotiations with Israel.

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article explaining why the military is not being paid if the government shuts down–they were paid in 1995. 

The article reports:

“During the 1995 shutdown, the Clinton Administration followed the OMB guidance issued during the Reagan Administration. The Obama Administration, it seems, is tacking a different direction.

“Let me be clear, the guidelines proposing to hold military paychecks are, according to the news reports, draft guidelines. It is possible the Obama Administration has abandoned these punitive guidelines. And, even if they implemented these guidelines, military personnel would most likely eventually receive their pay, once a budget agreement is reached. But, why even change the policy and subject our military to partisan political battles. The policy is certainly a change, but it doesn’t provide much hope.

“Hopefully, they will clear this up quickly.”

Think about this for a minute.  The Obama Administration is not using the OMB guidance and has made the decision not to pay the military during the shutdown.  I hope this changes–if it doesn’t, I hope everyone who is part of a military family will vote all Democrats out of office in 2012.  We can’t have leaders who play games with the military.

The article includes an update:

“Update: Aha, there is indeed an explanation for this. Military pay in 1995 wasn’t as simple as Clinton releasing the funds. There was a defense appropriations bill in effect during that shutdown. Via Gabe Malor, a report from the Congressional Research Service:

“A frequent question is how this compares to the last government shutdown in 1995-1996. There were two shutdowns at that time, one of five days, from November 13 through November 19, 1995, and one of 21 days, from December 15, 1995 through January 5, 1996. The first shutdown was not long enough to affect pay checks, and DOD was not affected by the second because defense appropriations were enacted on December 1, so funding was available.

“So it’s not The One’s fault that the military isn’t getting paid. (Well, it is insofar as he and Reid refuse to agree to Boehner’s new resolution, but it’s not solely his fault.) It’s actually … Reid’s and Pelosi’s fault for not passing a 2011 budget last year when they had a chance. The record stands corrected!”

Meanwhile, we haven’t even started the real debate on the 2012 budget!

Accusations are flying as to who is responsible for the pending government shutdown.  The thing to keep in mind as the feathers (and other things) fly is that Congress is required by law to pass the budget by October 1.  If you remember, on October 1, 2010, the House, the Senate, and the Presidency were all controlled by the Democrat party.  They chose not to pass a budget for fear of thier ideas impacting the coming election in a negative way.  After the election they somehow never got around to passing a budget, even though they were the majority party until January 2011.  Any shutdown is the responsibility of the Democrat Congress that did not pass a budget.  Why then is there a media campaign to blame John Boehner?

Today’s Daily Caller reports:

“A group of Washington, D.C. residents say they plan to leave their trash at House Speaker John Boehner’s house in the event of a government shutdown, an action their Facebook page says is retribution for the loss of city services a shutdown would cause.”

Why not leave the trash at the White House or at Harry Reid’s house? 

The group said that if the shutdown occurs, they will list Speaker Boehner’s address on Facebook so that people know where to bring their trash.

I am totally offended by this group’s actions.  First of all, they are placing blame where it doesn’t belong, second of all, they are acting like petulant children.  I hope they will rethink their plans and choose to act like grown-ups.

The Washington Post reported today that the Republicans in the House had passed a one-week continuing resolution to keep the government running.  The President has vowed to veto that legislation if it ever reaches his desk.  So how did we get here?

Congress is required by law to pass a budget by the end of October.  Last year, the Democratic Congress chose not to pass a budget–it was an election year and they were afraid of the consequences of taking a stand on anything.  That is the reason we are having this discussion now instead of last fall. 

It looks as if the President believes that a government shutdown will help him politically.  That may be a result of some focus group polling or that just may be a calculation based on events the last time the government was shut down.  I am not sure who wins in this mess.  The 24-hour news cycle may play a role in how this turns out–any pictures of frustrated tourists trying to get into a national park can be countered by a reminder of how we got here.

Whatever happens next, we need to keep in mind that we are here because the Democrats in Congress and the President did not do their jobs last fall.  That fact should not get lost in the shuffle.

On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal reported on a Supreme Court case involving tax breaks for people who gave charitable donations to support organizations that provide scholarships to private schools, many of which have religious affiliations.   At issue was whether or not the tax breaks were legal since some religious schools were involved. 

The article also reports:

“By a 5-4 vote, the justices ruled that Arizona taxpayers have no right to allege in court that the state’s tax-credit program violates the First Amendment prohibition of government “establishment of religion.” The decision upheld the program without addressing the allegation that it is unconstitutional, and effectively overruled decades of precedent permitting lawsuits against government programs that subsidize religious institutions through tax incentives.”

There are a number of other states that have similar programs–Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. 

The Wall Street Journal reported the following from the written decisions:

“Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that the exception applied only to government appropriations intended to subsidize religion. “A dissenter whose tax dollars are ‘extracted and spent’ knows that he has in some small measure been made to contribute to an establishment [of religion] in violation of conscience,” Justice Kennedy wrote.

“In contrast, a tax credit implicates funds never collected in the first place. “When the government declines to impose a tax,” Justice Kennedy wrote, “there is no such connection between dissenting taxpayer and alleged establishment.”

“In her first major dissent, Justice Elena Kagan called the distinction between tax appropriations and credits “arbitrary.” “Either way, the government has financed the religious activity. And so either way, taxpayers should be able to challenge the subsidy,” she wrote, joined by the court’s three other liberals.”

There is another aspect to this case.  As the discussion of the budget deficit heats up, I believe that the charitable contributions deduction will come under close scrutiny.  At this point, charitable donations to both religious and secular organizations may be looked at to be eliminated to raise more revenue.  This would be a huge mistake–many church and secular organizations perform vital work providing medical care, food, and housing for the poor and elderly.  To cut their funds at a time when the government may be forced to cut its own programs would be a serious error in judgment.  The only way it would make sense would be if the overall tax rate was dropped significantly in conjunction with the elimination of these deductions.  The danger there of course is that the tax rate could be raised later after the deductions were taken out.

President Obama seems to be acting like someone who won the lottery.  He is traveling, throwing lavish parties, and fundraising, but where is he when the country needs leadership?  Yesterday CNS News posted a story stating the following:

“Reporting from Baghdad, Iraq yesterday, NBC’s Tom Brokaw said the Saudi Arabian monarchy is “so unhappy with the Obama administration for the way it pushed out President Mubarak of Egypt” that it has sent senior officials to the Peoples’ Republic of China and Russia to seek expanded business opportunities with those countries.”

This is no joke.  We live in a dangerous world.  America needs allies to help keep the bad guys in check.  What in the world is going on?

Mr. Brokaw also reported that the situation in Iraq is fragile–both economically and politically. 

The article concludes:

“”So Iraq is a reminder of just how difficult it is to establish a democracy in this part of the world,” said Brokaw.  “After all, we’ve been at war here for eight years now, hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent, and thousands and thousands of lives have been lost on both sides.””

We need a President who is on the job and paying attention.  I am not sure we have one right now.  It is also important that the President remember who our friends are and treat them with respect.  Mubarak was a dictator, but his policies were a force for peace in the Middle East.  I don’t think we will like the new government.  The situation in Libya seems to be going downhill rapidly.  We need a President paying attention and looking at the big picture.