There is an amazing editorial posted at ArabNews.com today.  I strongly suggest you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will attempt to summarize it.

The writer is ABDULATEEF AL-MULHIM.  He asks the question:

“I have seen and read about the lives of the Palestinians in the US and other places. They are very successful in every field. And at the same time I saw the Arab countries at the bottom of the list in education and development. And I always ask the question: What if the Palestinians and the Arabs accepted the presence of Israel on May 14, 1948 and recognized its right to exist? Would the Arab world have been more stable, more democratic and more advanced?”

He rightfully points out that many of the Arab leaders used the Palestinians for their own purposes with no regard for the Palestinians themselves.  He points out that Arab leaders have historically used the cry to drive Israel into the sea to unite their people and consolidate their own power.  This prevented them from having to focus on solving any internal problems they might have had within their own countries.

The article points out:

“If Israel was recognized in 1948, then there would have been no need for a coup in Egypt against King Farouq in 1952 and there would have been no attack on Egypt in 1956 by The UK, France and Israel. Also there will be no war in June 1967 and the size of Israel will not be increased and we, the Arabs would not have the need for a UN resolution to beg Israel to go back to the pre-1967 borders. And no war of attrition between Egypt and Israel that caused more casualties on the Egyptian side than the Israeli side.”

The article cites further examples:

“Even a non-Arab country (Iran) used Palestine to divert the minds of their people from internal unrest. I remember Ayatollah Khomeini declaring that he would liberate Jerusalem via Baghdad and President Ahmadinejad making bellicose statements about Israel, though not even a single fire cracker was fired from Iran toward Israel.”

Regardless of how you feel about this article, I think the point can be made that solving the problems in your own country is better than scapegoating another country to unite your people.  Peaceful countries have a better chance for stability, prosperity, and better standards of living for their people.  The irony of the situation in the Middle East is that Israel is the country in which Arabs generally have the best living conditions in the Middle East.

Israel has never been a threat to her neighbors.  She has responded to attacks and planned attacks, but she has made it clear that her goal is to live at peace with her neighbors.  It has been said, “If the Arabs put down their weapons, there would be peace in the Middle East.  If Israel put down their weapons, there would be no Israel.”  I believe that is true.

Today, YNet News reported that Turkey forced an Iranian cargo plane to land in Turkey and discovered several crates of weapons and ammunition headed for Syria. 

The article reports:

“Turkish media reported that the plane was forced to land in a military airfield at the United Nations’ request following information indicating it was carrying nuclear materials. It was further reported that rocket launchers, mortars, rifles and explosive materials were found in one of the main cabinets on the plane.”

On March 15th as reported at Power Line, the Israelis intercepted a shipload of weapons manufactured in Iran, shipped through Syria and bound for Gaza.  It seems as if the enemies of Israel are arming.  This is not a good thing for peace in the Middle East.

Investors.com posted an article yesterday entitled, “Drill, Brazil, Drill!”  The opening sentence:

“While leaving U.S. oil and jobs in the ground, our itinerant president tells a South American neighbor that we’ll help it develop its offshore resources so we can one day import its oil. WHAT?!?”

What you just read is true.  President Obama does not want to alienate the environmental extremists in this country who oppose the development of our own energy resources, but American environmentalists have no problem with Americans paying $10 a gallon for gasoline imported from Brazil.  At this point I would like to make clear that I do not oppose environmentalism–I just believe it has to be balanced with practicality. 

The article reports:

“We have noted this double standard before, particularly when — at a time when the president was railing against tax incentives for U.S. oil companies — we supported the U.S. Export-Import Bank’s plan to lend $2 billion to Brazil’s state-run Petrobras with the promise of more to follow.

“Now, with a seven-year offshore drilling ban in effect off of both coasts, on Alaska’s continental shelf and in much of the Gulf of Mexico — and a de facto moratorium covering the rest — Obama tells the Brazilians:

“”We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers.””

The article details some of President Obama’s efforts at blocking America’s access to energy:

“Yet in his alleged quest for “secure-energy supplies,” he refuses to develop oil and natural gas resources in U.S. waters. His administration has locked up areas in the West where oil shale reserves are estimated to be triple Saudi Arabia’s reserves of crude. His administration is even stalling on plans to build a pipeline to deliver oil from Canada’s tar sands to the U.S. market.

“That project would build a 1,661-mile pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to U.S. refineries near Houston. It would create 13,000 “shovel-ready” jobs and provide 500,000 more barrels of oil per day from an ally.”

America has the resources to end its recession.  What we need is an administration in Washington that will let us use those resources.

I should probably apologize to the Keystone Kops for that headline (but I won’t)!  The UK Daily Mail posted an article today about the squabbling that is going on in NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) regarding the military operation in Libya. 

The article reports:

“President Barack Obama, seeking to avoid getting bogged down in a war in another Muslim country, said on Monday Washington would cede control of operations against Muammar Gaddafi’s forces within days and NATO would have a coordinating role.”

America has maintained a leadership role in the world since World War II.  It is a shame that the Obama Administration is choosing to give up that role.  There is no other democracy currently in a position to assume the responsibility that we are giving up.

One of the problems with having NATO take over the operations in Libya is that the unrest in Libya is not an obvious threat to Europe, which NATO was formed to protect.  There is also the issue of whether or not it is legal for NATO to authorize an air strike to kill Gaddafi.

The article further reports the comments of a NATO diplomat:

“‘Yesterday’s meeting became a little bit emotional,’ the envoy said, adding that France had argued that the coalition led by France, Britain and the United States should retain political control of the mission, with NATO providing operational support, including command-and-control capabilities.

“‘Others are saying NATO should have command or no role at all and that it doesn’t make sense for NATO to play a subsidiary role,’ the diplomat said.

“Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu suggested that air strikes launched after a meeting in Paris hosted by France on Saturday had gone beyond what had been sanctioned by a U.N. Security Council resolution.

“‘There are U.N. decisions and these decisions clearly have a defined framework. A NATO operation which goes outside this framework cannot be legitimised,’ he told news channel CNN Turk.”

Meanwhile, yesterday the Washington Examiner reported on the rules of war being placed on Americans involved in the military action in Libya.  These are some of the comments of General Carter Ham, the man who is in command of the United States attacks on Libya:

“Ham was asked what U.S. forces are instructed to do when they encounter pro-Gadhafi military units that are heavily armed but aren’t actually attacking civilians. “What we look for is, to the degree that we can, to discern intent,” Ham explained. He described a hypothetical situation in which an American pilot spotted a Libyan unit south of Benghazi. If the pilot determined the unit was moving toward the city, he could attack. If he determined the unit was setting up some sort of position, he could also attack. But if he determined the unit was moving away, then he couldn’t attack. “There’s no simple answer,” Ham said. “Sometimes these are situations that brief much better at headquarters than they do in the cockpit of an aircraft.””

This is just stupid.  Are we there to fight or just to be shot at?  If you want a humanitarian mission, send the United Nations!  If we are going to put men in harm’s way, we need to allow them to fight.  What we are seeing in Libya is an example of what happens when a Commander-in-Chief has no military experience, no practical business experience and no administrative experience.

On Thursday, Breitbart.com posted an article stating:

“Sodexo USA today filed a civil lawsuit against the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and other defendants under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, to stop the illegal campaign of extortion that the SEIU has been waging in the U.S. for over a year.” 

The lawsuit alleges that the SEIU has engaged in blackmail, vandalism, trespass, harassment, and lobbying law violations designed to steer business away from Sodexo USA and harm the company.

The article reports:

“Sodexo USA recognizes the value of union activity and has built positive relationships with more than 30 different unions.  Over 15 percent of Sodexo USA’s workforce is unionized, which is more than twice the national average for the private sector, and the Company has more than 300 collective bargaining agreements.  Despite this positive record, the SEIU has engaged in a vicious campaign to force the Company into broadly recognizing the SEIU to the exclusion of other unions without allowing its employees in the U.S. to exercise their right to vote for or against the SEIU in a federally supervised secret ballot election.”

I have said before that I believe the union leaders of today are the robber barons of yesterday.  It is no coincidence that the most frequent visitor to the White House during President Obama’s first year was Andy Stern, then President of the SEIU.

Please follow the link to the article to read about the activities of the SEIU that have resulted in this lawsuit.  I don’t know if the SEIU is typical of today’s unions, but there have been some serious questions in recent elections as to whether or not this particular union has been involved in voter fraud. 

Last December an article at Politico reported:

“Attorney General Eric Holder says that the growing number of American citizens joining terrorist groups including Al Qaeda is “one of the things that keeps me up at night.””

Recently Representative Peter King held hearings to look into the radicalization of American Muslims.  Is this valid, or are we being paranoid?  As the saying goes, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you”–Joseph Heller. 

Yesterday CBN News posted a story about the The Muslim Students Association (MSA), one of the largest Muslim organizations in America, with chapters on hundreds of college campuses.  The article includes a video report showing some of the alumni of the group and some of their activities.  One of the more disturbing items on the video is an excerpt from a question and answer session at the University of California-Davis with David Horowitz of Front Page Magazine where he asks a student member of the MSA, “I’m a Jew.  The head of Hezbollah has said that he hopes that we will gather in Israel so he doesn’t have to hunt us down globally. For or against it?”  “For it,” the MSA member answered firmly.

Please read the article at CBN News for the list of the MSA alumni.  The article also reports:

“(Former FBI Special Agent John) Guandolo worked on several major terrorism cases for the FBI. He calls the MSA the “focal point” for the Muslim Brotherhood in America.

“”Their goal, both from their senior leaders, presidents of MSA’s around the country, national leadership, is to implement Islamic government here in the United States,” he explained. “And they say that.”

“Founded in 1963 at the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana, the MSA quickly spread to other campuses in the Midwest.

“”There were really three leaders, three Iraqi guys: Jamal Barzinji, Ahmed Totonji, and Hisam Altalib, who really set it up, who are known, identified Muslim Brotherhood leaders,” said Poole. “And from there, MSA became the mother ship of all the Muslim Brotherhood front groups.””

Anyone want to make a small wager on whether or not the MSA collects ‘student fee’ money from the colleges where they are located?  I suspect we are funding our own undoing.

Stratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.) posted an updated analysis on the Libyan opposition leadership yesterday. 

Some of the things the article reports:

“The structure through which the Libyan opposition is represented is the National Transitional Council. The first man to announce its creation was former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil, who defected from the government Feb. 21 and declared the establishment of a “transitional government” Feb. 26. At the time, Abdel-Jalil claimed that it would give way to national elections within three months, though this was clearly never a realistic goal.”

The day after the announcement by Abdel-Jalil, Benghazi-based lawyer named Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga held a news conference where he claimed to be the spokesman for the new council. The article at Stratfor explains how this problem was solved:

“The National Transitional Council officially came into being March 6, and — for the moment, at least — has settled the personal and regional rivalry between Abdel-Jalil and Ghoga, with the former named the council’s head and the latter its spokesman. Despite the drama that preceded the formal establishment of the council, all members of the opposition have always been unified on a series of goals: They want to mount an armed offensive against the government-controlled areas in the west; they want to overthrow Gadhafi; they seek to unify the country with Tripoli as its capital; and they do not want foreign boots on Libyan soil. The unity of the rebels, in short, is based upon a common desire to oust the longtime Libyan leader.”

That is the current state of affairs.  The article points out that the opposition forces have not become a meaningful military force.  The air strikes by the nations that are aiding the rebellion have temporarily changed to balance of power to the rebels favor, but there seems to be a lack of basic military cohesion among the rebels.  This is a tribal society, and America has recently experienced some serious difficulties in trying to help tribal societies find unity and democracy. The thing to keep in mind here is that a new government may not be any friendlier to western civilization that the old government was.  The danger here is that we may be facilitating the establishment of a new Islamic state where Sharia Law is the basis of the judicial system.

At the Heritage Foundation‘s “Morning Bell”:

“But the fact that these operations could be successfully undertaken by coalition forces was never in doubt. The problem is that these operations by themselves will not be decisive in either eliminating the regime or fully protecting civilians. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Sunday that the U.S. expects to turn control of the Libya military mission over to a coalition (headed by the French? the British? or by NATO?) “in a matter of days.” What happens if Qadhafi is still in power by that time? The United Nations mandate authorizing these strikes is extremely broad, permitting anything but “occupying” Libya. The coalition has yet to state specific goals for the operation. What does protecting civilians mean.”

Yesterday’s New York Sun pointed out the similarities between what President Obama is doing and what Sarah Palin suggested three weeks ago.  The Sun points out:

“The former GOP vice presidential candidate was being interviewed on February 23rd on national television by Sean Hannity on a range of issues. On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin’s formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week when it was echoed by the man who, before the Iraq war, had led the Iraq democratic movement in exile, Ahmed Chalabi.”

On Saturday at National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy stated:

“On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted 10-0 (with five abstentions, including China, Russia, and Germany) to authorize the use of military force (i.e., “all necessary measures”) against Libya. Ostensibly, the resolution is designed to protect the Libyan people. But not to mince words, it is a license for war against the regime of Moammar Qaddafi. It would kick hostilities off with a no-fly zone over Libya. As a practical matter, American armed forces must do the heavy lifting if the strategy is to have a prayer, and indications are that President Obama intends to oblige.

“There is a catch: The Security Council is powerless to “authorize” the U.S. military to do a damned thing. The validity of American combat operations is a matter of American law, and that means Congress must authorize them.”

Mr. McCarthy does not necessarily argue against the war–he argues that a UN Resolution is no substitute for Congressional authorization.  America has a Constitution.  I know that Congress has sometimes been bypassed when a President decides to go to war, but this is not a good idea.  America really does need to go back to her Constitutional roots.

If you read this blog on a regular basis, you know that I don’t support the United Nations.  I believe it has become a club of tyrants do not stand for freedom or prosperity for anyone but themselves.  How they react to the following complaint will either confirm or ruin my theory.

Haaretz reported yesterday that Israel will lodge a formal complaint with the United Nations after more than 50 mortars were fired into Israel from Gaza on Saturday morning.  Hamas has claimed responsibility for 10 of the mortars. 

According to the article:  Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman

“(Foreign Minister Avigdor) Lieberman, in a message to the UN, warned that a future Palestinian state would be a “terrorist state who’s first and foremost goal is the destruction of Israel.”

“The offensive from Gaza took place while “Hamas and the Palestinian Authority were talking about reunification,” Lieberman’s message said.”

I don’t know if there has ever been a ‘requirement or test’ to become a state, but if there were, the actions of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority (PA) should disqualify them.  Hamas and the PA have stated that they would like to become a state.  They have also stated that they would like to drive Israel into the sea.  Wouldn’t making them a state give them permission to do that?  Does the world really need another terrorist state?  As I have said before, “Change the culture–then create the state.”  Until hatred is not taught in the schools in Gaza and until the idea of living in peace is taught, Palestine should not be a state.  The violence isn’t about being a state (the violence was there before the idea of statehood was introduced, see Walid Shoebat‘s website–the idea of a Palestinian state was introduced in 1967–until then Jordan was considered to be the Palestinian state)–this is simply a violent culture that has aimed its anger at Israel.  Let’s not make them legitimate.

It will be interesting to see what the United Nations does with the complaint.

On March 17th the Wall Street Journal reported that banks have repaid 99 per cent of the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) money.  That is true, but somewhat misleading if you are trying to evaluate the success or failure of TARP.

The American Spectator reported some additional numbers.  The article points out that the banks have paid back 99 per cent of the money that the banks were given ($244 billion of the $245 billion including some profits that the Treasury Department gained). 

However, this is not the entire picture.  The article at the American Spectator points out:

“…This claim, while accurate, is still not helpful in assessing TARP’s effectiveness because, as former Congressional Oversight Panel members Pau Atkins, Mark McWatters, and Kenneth Troske argue in the Journal, “TARP was never where the real action was happening. In fact, other Fed and FDIC programs added another $2 trillion of taxpayer money at risk to the 19 stress-tested banks alone, on top of the $1.1 trillion of MBS purchased by the Fed. TARP is but one-eighth of that total.” Those numbers do not even include the Fed’s near-zero interest rate policy, which has allowed big banks to earn risk-free profits.”

Neil Barofsky, who is the outgoing Special Inspector General for TARP, explained that creating a safety net for large banks made it possible for those banks to take greater risks. 

Mr. Barofsky explained:

“Credit-rating firms are to giving these “too big to fail” institutions higher ratings based on the government’s implied guarantee, Mr. Barofsky said. As a result, he said, lenders “give those institutions access to debt at a price that does not fully account for the risks created by their behavior.”

“That effective government subsidy, he said, enables big profits and “allows the largest institutions to become even larger relative to the economy while materially disadvantaging smaller banks.” [Emphasis added.]”

It is nice that the banks who took TARP money have repaid most of it.  However, the damage done to the free market is going to take a long time to repair.

This is an article about Libya.  There are no links to the situation in Libya because you can google Libya and get lots of stories you can read.  There will be other links to make various points.

I have hesitated to write about Libya because the situation there is changing rapidly and I also don’t have a lot of trust in the news reports coming out of there.  You may remember that in April of 2003 Eason Jordan posted an op-ed piece in the New York Times explaining that his reporting on Iraq before the US invasion of that country was not complete.  Mr. Jordan was concerned for his safety and the safety of his sources and kept that in mind in his reporting.  Whether or not you agree with that, it is a fact of life.

The forest I refer to in the headline of this article is the uprisings that have taken place in the Middle East in the past few months–beginning with Egypt.  The common element in these uprisings is the Muslim Brotherhood, which had been banned in both Egypt and Libya.  The dictators in Egypt and Libya, Mubarak and Gaddafi, are (and were) dictators.  They should never have received any sort of support from America (Gaddafi didn’t receive support, but we often turned a blind eye to his activities).  However, there are not a lot of Jeffersonian Democrats in the Middle East.  We need to keep that in mind.  Islam and democracy do not seem to co-exist well for extended periods of time–watch what is happening in Turkey (History News Network from George Mason University).

One thing to remember here is the role of Iran in the Middle East.  When the Iranian revolution occurred in 1979, a constitution was put in place that calls for the establishment of a world-wide caliphate (Islamic State under Sharia Law).  Please remember this as you look at events in the Middle East.  It it interesting that the current unrest in the Middle East is in countries that are not currently strong supporters of Sharia Law.  I have an uncomfortable feeling that after the smoke clears, many of these formerly secular countries will not longer be secular.

Sometimes the most basic examples are the best.  This is one of them.  John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line yesterday that puts the budget debate in terms that I can understand.

In the interest of science (of course), John went to McDonald’s and ordered a Big Mac Extra Value Meal.  He based his research on a Cato Institute report that commented on the ‘budget slashing’ Continuing Resolution recently passed:

“Federal spending has soared by more than $2,000,000,000,000 during the Bush-Obama years, pushing the burden of government up to $3,800,000,000,000, yet the reporters who put together this story said that an agreement to trim a trivially tiny slice of 2011 spending would “slash the budget.”

“As Charlie Brown would say, good grief. This is the budgetary equivalent of going on a diet by leaving a couple of french fries in the bottom of the bag after bingeing on three Big Mac meals at McDonald’s.”

John decided to follow up on this concept.  John Hinderaker concluded:

“,,,If there are 570 calories in a large order of fries, and 87 fries per order, each french fry, on the average, contains 6.5 calories. One 633rd of the total calorie content of a Big Mac Extra Value Meal is 1,320/633, or 2.1 calories. That equals almost exactly one-third of an average sized french fry.

“So, consider: if you were to go on what the Democrats consider a starvation diet, and “slash” your calorie intake to exactly the same degree that the Republicans’ $6 billion cut has “slashed” the federal budget, you would do the following. Go to McDonalds and order a Big Mac Extra Value meal. Eat the Big Mac. Drink the Coke. Eat 86 of the 87 french fries. Carefully take the last fry and bite off two-thirds of it. Put the remaining one-third of one fry back in the bag.

“If you seriously think that you have just “slashed” your diet, you are a Democrat. Most likely, an overweight Democrat.”

All this ruckus about budget cuts involves cuts that equal only one third of a french fry.  Good grief is right. 

Fleming and Hayes reported yesterday on a ruling by 13th Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Nielson that a civil suit between the “Islamic Education Center of Tampa” and four of it`s trusties be settled, not in a court of law, but under “Ecclesiastical Islamic Law”.  Just for the record, Ecclesiastical Islamic Law is Sharia Law.

This is part of the ruling.  Follow the link to Fleming and Hayes to see the entire ruling.

Lest you think Sharia Law is ok, here are a few of its tenants (via an American Thinker article from August 2005).

Commands that drinkers and gamblers by whipped.

Allows wife beating, even for such things as ‘highhandedness.’

Allows for ‘an eye for an eye’ as legal revenge.

Requires hands of those who steal to be cut off.

Highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.

Homosexuals should be executed.

Orders unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.

Orders death for Muslims (and possible death for non-Muslims) who criticize Mohammad, the Quran, and Sharia.

Orders the killing of apostates.

Commands aggressive and offensive jihad.

It is obvious from reading the above (follow the link to the American Thinker to get details on each point) that Sharia Law is not compatible with American law.  To introduce Sharia Law (and set a precedent) is dangerous to the freedom of Americans.

When I retired from my regular job, I thought I went out with a bang–my boss threw a party for me at Dave & Busters.  It was just my speed.  Well, Wednesday’s Boston Herald showed me how the experts do it.

The Herald posted a story about the staff bonuses given out by the Massachusetts Congressional Delegation last year.  Representative William Delahunt, who retired in January, was extremely generous.

The article reports:

“Delahunt, who retired in January after 14 years on Capitol Hill, gave his staff an additional $117,000 in the fourth quarter of 2010, which represented a 38 percent hike in his quarterly payroll, despite a spokesman’s claim that his staff was sharply reduced.

“Delahunt spokesman Mark Forest said the congressman gave “performance-based” bonuses to staffers, whose workload increased once the Quincy Democrat announced his retirement.”

Wow.  The article further reports:

“The bonuses were revealed by congressional watchdog Legistorm, which found that 96 lame ducks handed out a total of $6.7 million in staff bonuses as they left office. House members are given office budgets of $1.4 million to $2 million, and many give bonuses at the end of each year rather than return unspent money.”

Well, at least I now have an idea of why the federal budget never goes down–“many give bonuses at the end of each year rather than return unspent money.”  That explains a lot.  Until we change the culture of spending in Washington, we will never have a fiscally responsible budget.

Admittedly, this is rather naive on my part, but when I vote, I assume that the names on the ballot are there because they want to be and stand for whatever they say they stand for.  Evidently that’s not always true.  It was not true in Michigan in 2010.

This article has three sources–Power Line yesterday, Hot Air yesterday, and Fox News in Detroit.  All three articles are reporting on an election plot by two former leaders of the Oakland County Democratic Party. 

Ed Morrissey reports at Hot Air:

“If you can’t beat ’em … fake ’em out? Two Democratic Party leaders in Michigan face nine felony counts after prosecutors allege that they forged documents to put fake Tea Party candidates on the ballot. Unlike other schemes where Democrats allegedly recruited candidates to run on ersatz Tea Party organization identities, these “candidates” had no idea they were on the ballot at all, some of them only discovering it after receiving delinquency notices on filings.”  

The Detroit News reports:

“It’s not illegal to be a non-serious candidate.  That’s not what’s being alleged here.  What is being alleged is that the people that were on the ballot were phony candidates and that they got there by fraudulent means.  That’s the crime.”

Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard said that 23 statewide races had questionable Tea Party candidates on the ballot and the investigation may go beyond Oakland County.

Wow.  When did Chicago move to Michigan?

USA Today posted an article about the economic boom that is currently going on in North Dakota.  Yes, I did say North Dakota.  Fargo has grown rapidly, reaching a population of 105,549. 

The article reports:

“North Dakota is one of the nation’s least diverse states. Hispanic, black and Asian residents each make up 2% or less of its population. American Indians are the largest minority group, equal to 5.4% of the population.

“The superstar of North Dakota is its economy. The state’s unemployment rate hasn’t touched 5% since 1987. The state’s per capita income rose over the decade from 38th in the nation to 17th, the biggest advance of any state.”

What is the secret of this prosperity?  The article explains:

“North Dakota is enjoying an oil boom in the western part of the state, drawing workers from across the country. Williston, in oil country, grew 17.6% to 14,716. The oil windfall has created a $1 billion state budget surplus.

“Agriculture — 90% of the state’s area is used for farms and ranches — is productive and profitable, making the state a top exporter of wheat and other crops. Federal agriculture subsidies add nearly $1 billion a year.

“North Dakota is one of the few states to add manufacturing jobs over the decade. Bobcat, maker of farm and construction equipment, is headquartered in the state.”

Developing America’s energy sources creates jobs, income and economic growth.  How can we get Washington to follow the example of North Dakota?

Yesterday’s Wshington Post posted an article about the release of Raymond A. Davis, a CIA contractor who has been in prison in Pakistan since January 27. 

The article reports:

“At the time of his arrest, Davis was serving as a security guard for a team of CIA operatives gathering intelligence on militant organizations in Lahore, including Lashkar-i-Taiba, a group that has carried out deadly attacks against India and has long been backed by the ISI.

“A former U.S. Special Operations soldier and employee of the private security firm known as Blackwater, Davis said he fired in self-defense after being approached by two armed men on a motorcycle in an apparent robbery attempt at a traffic signal.

“U.S. officials initially asserted that Davis was merely a State Department employee entitled to diplomatic immunity. President Obama called him “our diplomat” and argued that he should be released. But Pakistani officials disagreed.”

The article also reports:

“A broad agreement was reached last Friday to make blood money payments to the families, but officials said there were concerns that it might unravel as the families argued about the terms.

“Such payments are incorporated into Pakistan’s statutes under “compensation and forgiveness” provisions of sharia law.”

This is a glorified ransom payment–and even at that the release of Mr. Davis is not popular with many Pakistanis.

The U K Independent reported yesterday:

“The US had insisted that Davis had diplomatic immunity and demanded Pakistan free him immediately.

“Pakistani officials, faced with criticism by Islamist parties and members of the public, had refused to state clearly whether he had immunity.

Pakistani officials had suggested that the payment of “blood money” was the best solution and in recent days speculation mounted that such a deal was in the works.

“Mr Sanaullah said Davis was charged with murder before members of the dead mens’ families were taken into the court, where they signed papers formally forgiving him in exchange for £2.3 million dollars.

“Judges then acquitted him on all charges.”

There is one more small detail to this story as reported in the Washington Post:

“Negotiations to resolve the dispute began in earnest three weeks ago, when Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) made a surprise trip to Pakistan at the administration’s request to try to ease tensions.

“A broad agreement was reached last Friday to make blood money payments to the families, but officials said there were concerns that it might unravel as the families argued about the terms.”

There are no words…

I was about to write a post about an article by Hugh Hewitt posted at Townhall.com when I came across another article at the Daily Caller which totally undid my thinking for the first post. 

Here is the story.  Mr. Hewitt posted an article entitled, “The McClellan Republicans.”  The article states:

“Speaker John Boehner, GOP Leader Eric Cantor and GOP Whip Kevin McCarthy have been in their saddles since November 2, and even though their formal power only arrived in January, they have had more than four months to prepare the debate over the CR, the debt ceiling and the FY 2012 budget.

“If they prepared at all they prepared poorly, concentrating on symbolic gestures and focusing on procedural niceties like “open rules” rather than closing with the Democrats and forcing the first of the many showdowns ahead on spending. The phony cuts assembled thus far -the GOP talking points say $8 billion has been sawed from the federal budget–have not resulted in a single lay-off or program closure. One could look for months and see no effect from these paper cuts.”

The article totally echoes my frustration with the Republican leadership.  Meanwhile, the Daily Caller is reporting:

“In wake of conservative James O’Keefe’s Project Verutas sting videos of National Public Radio (NPR) senior executives, House Republicans are set to vote Thursday to defund NPR completely.  They’re expected to pass a bill that would pull all taxpayer money out of NPR, including the money that’s funneled through the Corporationn for Public Broadcasting (CPB).”

If they pass it, can they make their case well enough to get it through the Senate and past the President?

America’s spending is out of control.  We can no longer afford NPR (and many other things).  If this Congress can’t figure that out, we will have to elect a new one in 2012!

Last night I watched the movie Iranium at the Ahavath Torah Congregation in Stoughton, Massachusetts.  I have heard about the movie, but have never had a chance to see it.  It is well worth seeing.  I will try to highlight some of it here.

The movie begins in 1978 with Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran.  He was a dictator who was attempting to turn the country into a modern pro-Western society.  As unrest began, America withdrew her support of his regime, and in February 1979, the Shah was overthrown.  Two weeks after the Shah fled, Ruhollah Khomeini (known as “the ayatollah”) was welcomed home from exile as a hero.  In November of 1979, the American Embassy in Tehran was stormed.  The feeble response of the United States sent the message to the Iranian regime that America was weak and would not respond.  Since that time, Iran has felt free to sponsor terrorism around the world without fear of retaliation by the United States.  It should be noted that when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States, the hostages taken when the American Embassy was stormed were released.  President Reagan was not seen as the same kind of weak President that Jimmy Carter had been.

The goal of Ayatollah Khomeini is a world-wide caliphate achieved by a world-wide Islamic revolution.  Over the past thirty years, Iran has sponsored terrorism around the world in order to achieve that aim.  The movie Iranium details many of those activities and documents the fact that Iran is engaged in extending its reach into the Western Hemisphere. 

As Iran extends its reach, it is also seeking nuclear weapons.  Iran was one of the countries that received nuclear technology from Pakistani nuclear scientist A Q Khan (Abdul Qadeer Khan).   The question then becomes, “What is the impact of a nuclear Iran?”  That is the topic of the movie.

At this point the movie reminded me of something I had forgotten–it was the fact that at one point during its war with Iraq, Iran sent young boys running across minefields (promising them instant admittance to paradise when they were killed) to clear the path for tanks and troops.  I can’t wrap my head around that.  That is the mentality we are dealing with.

The movie does not recommend a military attack on Iran by western countries.    The hope in the movie and in the question and answer period that followed the movie was in the ‘Green Revolution.’  The ‘Green Revolution’ erupted into public violence after the 2009 elections.  The people of Iran felt that the elections were fixed and that their votes did not count.  It was pointed out that the regime in Iran will eventually collapse.  The hope is that the collapse will take place before they have nuclear weapons.  The current regime does not represent the Iranian people, but there is no guarantee that a new regime would not become a secular dictatorship as brutal as the religious dictatorship in charge now.

The thing to remember in considering Iran and its role in the world is the fact that the goal of the current regime in Iran is to set up a world-wide caliphate.  The goal is world-wide Sharia law.  There are areas in Europe and Britain where the Muslim population of countries is less than five percent, but there are already areas under Muslim control where the police will not go.  France particularly has had a dramatic rise in anti-Semitic activity in recent years.  Iran is not only a problem for Israel and other nations in the Middle East.  Iran is an American problem.

As has been previously reported:

Media reports said a baby girl of three months, two children aged three and 11, and their parents Ehud and Ruth Fogel were all stabbed to death in the Friday night attack in Itamar near the Palestinian town of Nablus.

There will be a memorial service for the Fogel family tomorrow in New York City.  The following letter has gone out about the service:

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

12:00 noon
Congregation Kehilath Jeshurun
125 East85th Street(Park-Lex)
New York City

Join in a community wide memorial service for the five members of the Fogel family who were brutally murdered this past weekend while asleep in their home. We must not be silent! We must demand justice for the victims. Speak out against the continuing incitement against Israel and the Jewish people.

Co-Sponsors
Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations
Consulate General of Israel in New York
Jewish Community Relations Council of New York
UJA-Federation of New York
(In formation)

Dear Friends,

In the event that you cannot join us in person at tomorrow’s memorial program, please consider participating via our online webcast using the link below. Please also help us by circulating this link and flyer to your networks.

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/live-from-ckj

The webcast link will go live at 12 noon today.

Tonight I had the privilege of attending a showing of the movie “Iranium” and meeting Clare Lopez, a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy.  The movie puts in context many of the terrorist attacks that have occurred around the world in the past thirty years.  The movie is not a call to military action–it is a call to be informed, share information, and make sure our leaders are not ignoring basic facts.

I will write a detailed article about the movie and the question and answer session that followed the movie tomorrow, but I am still trying to grasp what I saw and heard.  I would much rather live with my head in the sand, but I suspect that the time when I, as an average American, could afford that luxury is now over.

Please visit the website linked above and learn about “Iranium.”

I don’t claim to be unbiased in writing this article.  I am an American.  I am the daughter of a D-Day U. S. Army Officer, the wife of a Viet Nam era Navy veteran, and the mother-in-law of a Marine.  I love my country and I believe in Western culture.

In recent years, Americans have been told that their culture and ‘civilization’ is no better than anyone else’s and that there is not anything particularly noteworthy about western civilization.  Well, this isn’t an American story, but it is definitely a cultural story.

As has been reported:

Media reports said a baby girl of three months, two children aged three and 11, and their parents Ehud and Ruth Fogel were all stabbed to death in the Friday night attack in Itamar near the Palestinian town of Nablus.

Contrast that with a story that appeared in YNET News today:

“Just as IDF Chief of Staff Benny Gantz arrived in Neve Tzuf to offer his condolences, a Palestinian cab raced towards the community’s entrance. In it, soldiers and paramedics discovered a Palestinian woman in her 20s in advanced stages of labor and facing a life-threatening situation: The umbilical cord was wrapped around the young baby girl’s neck, endangering both her and her mother.

 “The quick action of settler paramedics and IDF troops deployed in the area saved the mother’s and baby’s life, prompting great excitement and emotions at the site where residents are still mourning the brutal death of five local family members.”

Which culture would you rather be a part of?

The Jerusalem Post reported yesterday that a cargo vessel was seized by the Israeli Defense Forces.  The ship was flying a Liberian flag and was carrying Chinese-made anti-ship missiles, as well as instruction manuals in Farsi.

It is believed the weapons were headed for Hamas and other groups in the Gaza Strip. 

The article reports:

“The commandos did not encounter resistance when boarding the ship and were given the cargo certificates indicating that 39 containers had been loaded in the Syrian port of Latakia.

“Two weeks earlier, a pair of Iranian warships had docked at the same port – possibly carrying weapons. Four of the containers, found with heavy locks, were slated to be unloaded in the port of Alexandria in Egypt.

“The ship left Latakia and sailed to the port of Mersin in Turkey – likely a ploy meant to deflect attention from the ship and its cargo. The IDF stressed that it believed that neither Egypt nor Turkey was involved in the arms shipment.

“According to the certificates, the containers were supposed to be carrying cotton and lentils, but when the commandos pulled out the first row of sacks they found crates of mortar shells and advanced anti-ship missiles.”

I think one of the consequences of the change of regime in Egypt will be more of these ships.  I am not saying that Egypt was directly involved–I am simply suggesting that they may not pay close attention to what is shipped to Gaza through their country. 

Please understand, the ruling powers in Gaza have no plans for a peaceful Palestinian State–their plan is to drive Israel into the sea.  That plan has not changed in more than sixty years.

Regardless of which side of the battle you favor in the recent Wisconsin struggle, there are a few things that should concern you.  A website called Legal Insurrection posted a story about what happened when Republicans attempted to collect signatures on a petition to recall the Senators who fled the state three weeks ago.

The article reports:

“Upon arrival, members of the recall committee were encircled by union protesters carrying signs and a leader with a mega phone who began chanting and ranting loudly. They packed in tightly around the petition collection table so as to prevent those attempting to sign from doing so. At one point, a pro union protester, pretending to be interested in signing the petition, wrote profanity across a partially collected petition form, than began ripping up the completed petitions that were in close proximity.

“The policemen who were there, and who were standing in close proximity to these events as they unfolded, did nothing to assist those collecting the petitions as they were being destroyed, despite such an action being a Felony under Wisconsin law. Police also did nothing to clear the walk way for citizens that wanted to sign the petitions. Recall Committee members received many phone calls the following day from Merill area citizens who stated that they showed up to sign the petition, but were too afraid to get out of their vehicles and approach the recall table.”

The thing to remember here is that according to numbers released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in January of this year, 6.9 percent of the private sector belongs to unions and 36.2 percent of the public sector belongs to unions.  These numbers do not represent majorities.  The voters included in these numbers are not capable of passing or stopping any legislation either on a state or federal level.  That might explain some of their over-the-top antics.

The article further reports:

“Emotions ran high as ralliers took to the Lincoln County Courthouse, calling for the recall of Democratic State Senator Jim Holperin, one of the 14 senators who fled the state more than three weeks ago.

“Organizers say the rally was originally scheduled at Club 64 in Merrill, but they had to change locations after business owners say they received more than 50 phone calls threatening to destroy their business and cause physical harm if the rally took place.

“Protestors both for and against the recall showed up. Even though they initially kept their distance, Holperin supporters engulfed the recall effort, and that’s when the situation turned tense.

“”They circled around us, and they’re bullying us. They have a loud horn and they’re trying to intimidate people that would like to come and sign the petition,” said Kim Simac, recall leader, “I do think that this is an intimidation ploy.”

“Simac says protestors even got involved with their petitions.

“”We had a lady come up and write profanity and rip some of them right on our table…. so I guess that’s what democracy looks like to them.””

This sort of behavior is not good news for our democracy.  The fact that many of the police are not in a hurry to do their job is also not a good sign.

Yesterday Hot Air reported:

“The foreign minister of France, which was spearheading the push for a NFZ initially, flatly admitted today that it’s probably too late now. Qaddafi rolled over the rebels in Ajdabiya last night and is poised to utterly devastate the last rebel fortress in Benghazi, so by the time the Security Council passes a resolution and NATO scrambles to begin operations against Libyan air defenses, the entire country may be back in Qaddafi’s hands. (So quickly are the regime’s troops advancing that when Newsweek published this piece last night about a “decisive” battle to come, that battle was already basically over. Already the news has shifted to Benghazi’s defenders “bracing for death.”) Even the rebels know it’s too late for a NFZ: Yesterday they expanded their requests from a no-flight zone to include airstrikes against Qaddafi’s compound in Tripoli. They’re not strong enough anymore to take him out so they’re begging us to do it for them.”

There was no quarantee that if the rebels succeeded in overthrowing Muammar Muhammad al-Gaddafi that the government that followed would be friendly to the United States.  I can, however, guarantee that because President Obama has stood back and refused to help the rebels, if by some miracle the rebels succeed, they will not be friendly to the United States.  Why would they be?  We used to have something called ‘black ops’ which took care of things like this, but the Church Committee in 1975 limited our activies around the world.  We have never fully recovered from the actions that committee took.  What we really need is Mitch Rapp.

I am truly sorry that we cannot find some way to help the rebels in Libya.  I don’t want to send troops into Libya, but a few well-placed predator drones would have been a really good idea.