This story is based on two sources–a Power Line article from yesterday and an article at News10 in Sacramento, California.

An airline pilot who was concerned about airport security posted videos on YouTube showing lapses in security at San Francisco International Airport.  Parts of the video he posted can be seen at the Power Line article linked above. 

The News10 article reports:

“Three days after he posted a series of six video clips recorded with a cell phone camera at San Francisco International Airport, four federal air marshals and two sheriff’s deputies arrived at his house to confiscate his federally-issued firearm. The pilot recorded that event as well and provided all the video to News10.

“At the same time as the federal marshals took the pilot’s gun, a deputy sheriff asked him to surrender his state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon.

“A follow-up letter from the sheriff’s department said the CCW permit would be reevaluated following the outcome of the federal investigation.”

The News10 describes some of the experience and qualifications of the pilot:

“He has worked for the airline for more than a decade and was deputized by the TSA to carry a gun in the cockpit.

“He is also a helicopter test pilot in the Army Reserve and flew missions for the United Nations in Macedonia.”

This sounds like a stable, contributing member of society who does not deserve to be hassled by the government.

The video at Power Line also reports that the pilot’s County Sheriff has also revoked his concealed carry weapons permit.

It seems to me that during the Bush Administration whistle blowers were considered a good thing.  At any rate, this seems a bit heavy-handed and I hope the new Congress will take a look into the matter in January.  The video at Power LIne also points out that the airline the pilot works for has asked him to remove the videos from YouTube, but he is not being disciplined by the airline in any way.  The government is also reviewing the pilot’s status as a Federal Deputy.  That is a voluntary position, and the pilot could continue to fly without being a Federal Deputy.

The 9/11 First Responders Bill has finally passed in the lame-duck Congress, and thankfully that Congress has gone home.  But have you wondered what the problem was?  We all want to help those who were impacted by that horrible day, what was the delay?

The answer can be found in the following press release from Senator Tom Coburn’s office:

(WASHINGTON, D.C.) – U.S. Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) released the following statement today regarding an agreement on the 9/11 bill.

“I’m pleased the sponsors of this bill agreed to lower costs dramatically, offset the bill, sunset key provisions and take steps to prevent fraud. Every American recognizes the heroism of the 9/11 first responders, but it is not compassionate to help one group while robbing future generations of opportunity. I’m pleased this agreement strikes a fair balance and improves the bill the majority attempted to rush through at the last minute,” Dr. Coburn said.

The agreement includes the following changes:

• Reduction in Costs. This agreement saves taxpayers $6.2 billion from the substitute amendment and $7.5 billion from the House-passed bill. In the deal, costs are reduced to $4.2 billion in the 10-year window and eliminated outside the 10-year window. Of that amount, $1.5 billion will go to health benefits, while $2.7 billion will go to compensation.

• Permanently Close the Victims Compensation Fund (VCF) after 5 years. The original bill kept the VCF open through 2031, making it extremely susceptible to waste, fraud and abuse and incurring significant long-term costs. The fund is now open only through 2016 and has language to expressly say that it is permanently closed at after 5 years.

• Limitations on Attorneys Fees. Places a hard cap for attorneys’ fees at 10 percent of the total award and allows the Special Master to reduce attorneys fees he believes are excessive

• Prevents Reinstatement of Civil Claims. Prevent claimants who are rejected from the VCF from then pursuing a civil lawsuit. This is consistent with the earlier VCF policy.

• Limitation on Infrastructure Costs. Explicitly excludes construction and capital projects from health care spending in the bill.

• Commitment to ensure eligible individuals cannot “double-dip” on benefits. The Senators all agreed to get in writing from the Special Master that he will include workers compensation benefits in collateral sources of benefits that he must offset from potential compensation awards.

• More Accountability. Require claims-level data reporting to provide accountability and opportunity for oversight, as well as GAO reports to determine less expensive mechanisms to provide nationwide care, pharmaceutical access, and health information technology promotion.

The thing to notice here is that the reduction in cost did not reduce the benefits to the victims–it reduced the lawyers’ fees.  The lawyers’ lobby is one of the major contributors to Democrat election campaigns.  If Senator Coburn had not fought for this change, the taxpayers would have paid very large sums of money to lawyers rather than victims.  This is the kind of scrutiny and changes that any bill coming before Congress needs to be subjected to.  Thank you, Senator Colburn for standing strong to make this change.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported today that Britain is preparing to confer diplomatic status on the Palestinian delegation in London for the first time. 

The article reports:

“The Foreign Office confirmed it was studying a proposal that would see Palestinian ”general delegations” upgraded to ”diplomatic missions” in a number of European capitals.”

The article further reports:

“Meanwhile, the Palestinian leadership has stepped up its efforts to win European recognition for a state on land occupied by Israel in 1967.

“The Foreign Office said the upgrade did not ”imply recognition of a Palestinian state”.”

The recognition of a Palestinian State without that Palestinian State acknowledging the right of Israel to exist is not a good thing.  All that has happened is that a group of people dedicated to wiping out the state of Israel have been made legitimate on the world stage.  That is not a recipe for peace.

Michael Barone is known as the final word on political demographics.  He posted an article at Townhall.com on his interpretation of the recently announced census results. 

Mr. Barone points out that the northeast and California, both of which had been growth centers during the 20th Century, have lost that distinction to Texas. 

Mr. Barone points out:

“Its (Texas) population grew 21 percent in the last decade, from nearly 21 million to more than 25 million. That was more rapid growth than in any states except for four much smaller ones (Nevada, Arizona, Utah and Idaho).

“Texas’ diversified economy, business-friendly regulations and low taxes have attracted not only immigrants but substantial inflow from the other 49 states. As a result, the 2010 reapportionment gives Texas four additional House seats. In contrast, California gets no new House seats, for the first time since it was admitted to the Union in 1850.”

If the states are to be considered ‘laboratories for government policies’, there are lessons to be learned here–tax policies and legal policies matter. 

In describing the impact of the population changes shown in the 2010 Census, Mr. Barone noted:

“Finally, let’s get to politics. The net effect of the reapportionment was to add six House seats and electoral votes to the states John McCain carried in 2008 and to subtract six House seats and electoral votes from the states Barack Obama carried that year. Similarly, the states carried by George W. Bush in 2004 gained six seats, and the states carried by John Kerry lost six.

“That’s not an enormous change. But it’s part of a long-term trend that has reshaped the nation’s politics. If you go back to the 1960 election, when the electoral votes were based on the 1950 Census, you will find that John Kennedy won 303 electoral votes. But the states he carried then will have only 272 electoral votes in 2012, a bare majority. And without Texas, which he narrowly carried, the Kennedy states would have only 234 electoral votes.”

As I said, Mr. Barone is the expert on how elections work in regard to districts and states.  It will be interesting to follow his comments as redistricting of the states begins.

The Obama Administration has not been at all even handed in its dealing with Israel in the Administration’s quest for peace in the Middle East.  That is not the reason the process had fallen apart–there will not be peace in the Middle East until both sides acknowledge the right of the other side to exist.  Until that hurdle is overcome, true peace is not possible.

Now the President has a chance to do something good for Israel and for America.  The Jerusalem Post reports that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will ask President Obama to release Jonathan Pollard, an Israeli spi who has been in prison in the United States for 25 years. 

According to the article:

“Netanyahu will issue a public, formal and official call in upcoming days for Obama to release the Israeli agent , the Prime Minister’s Office announced in a press release Tuesday.

“”I intend to continue to act with determination to free Pollard, both because of the ethical obligation Israel has toward him and because Jonathan should have the right to live with his family and rehabilitate his health after so many years in jail,” Netanyahu said in the press release.”

It’s interesting to note that Jonathan Pollard, who was spying for a country that is supposed to be a strong ally, has been held longer than any spy from a country that is not considered friendly to the interests of the United States. 

The Middle East Forum pointed out in 1997:

“Life imprisonment is apparently the harshest punishment ever meted out to someone found guilty of spying during peace time. Indeed, since the execution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg in 1953, during the Korean War, no spy has received a harsher sentence, even during war time. The severity of Pollard’s sentence is in itself noteworthy.

“It is all the more so in light of two other factors. First, Pollard did not stand trial for his crime. Rather, he received his life sentence after entering into a plea-bargain agreement in which the government promised not to seek a life sentence. Entering into that agreement, Pollard relinquished his right to a trial, cooperated with government investigators, pleaded guilty — all, presumably, with the expectation that some leniency would be shown in his sentence. The expectation was reasonable, but it proved illusory. Secondly, Pollard was sentenced to life in prison despite the fact that he was never accused of delivering classified information to an enemy of the United States. Rather, he was accused of delivering such information to Israel, a close and staunch American ally. There may be no other case of a life sentence imposed for spying on behalf of a strategic ally.”

Some of the information I have found on this case indicates that Mr. Pollard was supplying Israel information on its enemies that the United States had, but had not shared.  He was not simply spying to sell damaging information to our enemies–he was trying to help Israel survive the continuing attacks from its neighbors.

Unless the classified documents surrounding his conviction are made public, we will never know the true reason for the harsh sentence.  Until that happens, I think the best thing to do is free Mr. Pollard and send him home to his family.  Israel is not an enemy of the United States, and we need to treat them as friends–not adversaries.

On Monday the Daily Caller reported that New Jersey Governor Chris Christie commuted the sentence of Brian Aitken–reducing his sentence from seven years in prison to time already served.  Brian Aitken was sentenced to prison because in 2009 police found unloaded guns in the trunk of his car.  The guns had been purchased legally in Colorado where Mr. Aitken lived.  The guns were properly stored and unloaded.  Mr. Aitken was in the process of moving his household to New Jersey to be closer to his son and had not yet registered the guns in New Jersey.

According to the article:

“New Jersey law requires residents who want to transport firearms legally to request a permit from a local law enforcement office and produce a letter stating why it is necessary for them to carry a gun.”

On the surface it seems as if this man is no threat to society.  His true crime may have been ignorance of the law or procrastination.  Moving from one state to another is not usually all that complicated, and Mr. Aitken may have simply not gotten around to registering his guns.  He was used to living in a state where gun possession is more common than it is in New Jersey.

Why did New Jersey intend to spend taxpayers’ money to keep a man who was making a positive contribution to society locked up in jail for seven years?  I am glad Governor Christie has commuted this sentence.

There are some good pictures of the lunar eclipse posted at the UK Telegraph website.  Enjoy.

My source on this goes back to the beginning of December, but the issue is still with us.  On December 1st, a website called The Other McCain posted an article on the Pigford Settlement Project.

The article included a Press Release from Iowa Represenative Steve King:

“Congressman Steve King (R-IA) today issued the following statement after the lame duck Congress passed legislation appropriating $1.15 billion to fund the controversial and fraud-plagued Pigford settlement program. Although estimates suggest that the total universe of black farmers who could qualify for Pigford compensation only encompasses 18,000 people, over 94,000 people have submitted claims under the program. The Pigford funding request was included in H.R. 4783, the Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which passed the House of Representatives on a 256-152 vote yesterday afternoon. Congressman King voted against the legislation.
“The unaccountable lame duck Congress has irresponsibly voted to spend $1.15 billion on a Pigford settlement program that is severely compromised by fraud,” said King. “This means that people who have never farmed and people who have never been discriminated against by the USDA will be receiving tens of thousands of dollars in cash and debt relief simply for having filed a false claim. By ignoring Pigford fraud, Congress has allowed the program to change from one designed to address black farmers’ discrimination claims to one that now serves as a modern day slavery reparations program. The American people should be outraged by this vote and the new Congress should make an investigation of Pigford fraud a top priority.””

The website for Congressman King has the following press release:

“The unaccountable lame duck Congress is preparing to put Americans on the hook for an additional $1.15 billion in spending on a Pigford II settlement program that is rife with fraud despite the fact that current law caps the amount to be spent on these claims at $100 million,” said King. “To make matters worse, the Democrats who temporarily control the Rules Committee will not even allow my amendment protecting taxpayers from this excessive and fraudulent spending to be presented on the House floor for a vote. By cutting off consideration of my amendment, and by refusing to investigate serious allegations of Pigford fraud prior to voting on legislation allocating an additional $1.15 billion to the program, the lame duck Congress is, in effect, enabling Pigford fraud and this calls for an investigation by the 112th Congress.”

More information on the fraud involved in the Pigford project can be found at Big Government.  As America faces a debt crisis, fraud in government is one of the more painless ways to cut spending.  Let’s hope the incoming Congress is willing to investigate the Pigford settlement program thoroughly.

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy.  He posted an article at the group’s website, Center For Security Policy, today about the START Treaty. 

Mr. Gaffney points out:

“The treaty would leave the Russians with thousands more nuclear weapons than the United States when their ten-to-one advantage in “tactical” arms is factored in.  Moreover, the Kremlin’s tactical weapons are mostly modern. Ours are, on average, over thirty-years old; some actually rely on vacuum tubes.  Theirs are deployed forward near our allies and, in some cases, are being moved still closer in order to intimidate America’s friends. Meanwhile, our tactical bombs, artillery shells, etc. are no longer deployed aboard Navy ships and many of them are kept in the United States, and therefore are of limited, if any, deterrent value.” 

The recent behavior of the Russians should not convince us that they are partners for peace.  Mr. Gaffney further explains:

“New START will allow the Russians to have a say – and what amounts to a veto – over America’s defenses against missile attack.   The Russians have said they will withdraw from the treaty if we improve the quantity or quality of our very limited anti-missile capabilities.  That threat will be more than enough to dissuade an Obama administration that has already cut, slowed and refused to deploy U.S. anti-missile programs. 

“Such an arrangement is especially crazy since other dangerous countries that are not parties to New START are building up their ability to attack us and our allies with ballistic missiles (see above).  For example, Iran will soon have a base for such missiles in Venezuela – a new “Cuban Missile Crisis” in the making.  Why should Moscow be able to decide whether we can protect the American people from those missiles?”

This is a treaty negotiated by a President who does not understand that a strong United States is an asset to peace.  When the neighborhood policeman is armed to the teeth, the crime rate in the neighborhood goes down.

Hopefully enough Senators will realize that the treaty as it currently stands is not a good deal for the United States and should not be approved.  This is a lame-duck Congress.  It needs to go home! 

Arutz Sheva posted an article earlier this month about some comments made by Professor Yisrael Aumann, Nobel Laureate and noted American-Israeli mathematician and game theorist.  The professor was speaking at Bar Ilan University.

The article explains:

“Aumann is also known for his view that the principles of game theory can be successfully applied to the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

The article also provided a link to an explanation of his theories written for the layman here.

The article briefly explains his theory:

“”We think that posters with pigeons will bring about peace, but that isn’t true and will only bring about war,” added Aumann and cited the example of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, who handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for a guarantee that this would be the Nazi leader’s final demand. “Hitler did not want to start a war, but Chamberlain brought him into the war by chasing peace,” said Aumann decisively.

“In terms of the current situation between Israel and the PA, Aumann said that gestures towards the Arabs, such as the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, will ultimately bring about war and prove that applying pressure on Israel leads it to fold. “We are sending a signal of weakness to the other side and telling them that if they pressure they will get what they want. This is wrong.””

It is sad that we have to prepare for war in order to make peace, but sometimes strength is the only deterrent to war.  I shudder to think where Israel would be as a nation if the Arab nations around it did not suspect that Israel has nuclear weapons.  I shudder to think what will happen in the Middle East if Iran is successful in its nuclear program.  We need to pray for peace, but prepare for war.

On December 15th Investors.com posted an editorial about some of the decisions of the Eric Holder Justice Department.  There are definitely some things that need to be looked at.

The Justice Department has sued an Illinois school department for rejecting a Muslim teacher’s request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca.

According to the article:

“The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion “required” her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim.”

Doesn’t the school district have the right to deny a teacher a three-week leave of absence? 

The article further reports:

“Attorney General Eric Holder is fulfilling a promise to pander to the special interests of Muslims. In June 2009, he pledged “a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community” that includes “robust enforcement” of “religious freedoms.”

“”We are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans” in the workplace, housing market and schools, he said, adding that he was making it “a top priority.”

“Earlier this month, Holder spoke in San Francisco at the annual dinner of an anti-FBI group called the Muslim Advocates, whom he described as “partners in our work to promote tolerance.””

I am not in favor of discrimination against anyone, but there is a difference between discrimination and special privileges.  ‘Tolerance’ should not be an excuse for enforcing laws differently for different people. 

The editorial lists the groups that Attorney General Holder has spoken to over the past two years.  This is not an Attorney General who represents the majority of Americans or who represents all Americans equally.  I don’t expect him to be replaced as long as President Obama is in the White House, but I will be voting for a Republican President (regardless of who it is) in order to end Mr. Holder’s term as Attorney General.  He has created a level of partisanship in the Justice Department that simply does not belong there.  The handling of the Black Panters Voting Intimidation Case and the suit against the Arizona immigration law were simply inexcusable.

If you read this site for the news and news links, you might want to skip this story.  It is rather personal, and it is simply an observation that I think applies to the Christmas season.

I am not always the smartest person in the room, and on some occasions, I am probably the dumbest (as any of us is capable of being).  The following story is true, and it is not one of my shining moments, but there is something to be learned from it.

I love Christmas, and I love Christmas earrings.  Last year I found a pair of Christmas earrings that said “Ho, Ho, Ho.”  I was thrilled and couldn’t wait to wear them.  First chance I had, I put them on.  I was going out with my husband that night and went to do a final check in the mirror.  To my shock and disappointment, the earrings said “Oh, Oh, Oh.”  I figured that because they had words on them, they must be like shoes–there was a left and right one.  So I switched them and looked in the mirror again.  They still said, “Oh, Oh, Oh.”  Then the light dawned.  A mirror is a reflection–not a true picture.

Now there is a point to this silly story (which really is true).  Every day we look into the mirror to comb our hair, put on make-up, shave, etc.  We really don’t think about the fact that we are looking at a reflection–we are not looking at actual reality.  Most of the time that doesn’t matter–sometimes it does.  We aren’t even aware of the fact that our perspective is not real.

It’s Christmas.  We are in a world of malls decorated with beautiful colored ornaments and beautifully decorated trees.  Everyone is buying gifts.  The perspective on television is all the things we absolutely have to do or have to make Christmas perfect.   Where is your perspective?  Is it a reflection of the mall, the television and the shopping or is it a reflection of the reason for the season?  We give gifts because God gave us the greatest gift of all.  Are you celebrating Jesus’ birthday or are you celebrating something that you see around you?  Are you seeing “Oh, Oh, Oh, or have you reached the point where in faith you know the earrings do actually say “Ho, Ho, Ho” regardless of what you are seeing?

Merry Christmas!

One of the aspects of the recently passed Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is its attack on bake sales and pizza parties in schools.  In an article posted yesterday in the Washington Times by Gabriella Hoffman, Ms. Hoffman points out that Michelle Obama has a law degree–not a degree in nutrition. 

In the article Ms. Hoffman tells parents that they have to step up and take an active role in what their children eat:

“It is imperative that parents reassert their authority over their children’s eating habits. When parents educate their kids about what they should and should not eat, there wouldn’t be a need for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Parents are supposed to teach their kids how to eat healthy and stay in shape. They show them what kinds of food to eat and how to manage their portion sizes. They show their kids that a healthy lifestyle is incomplete unless they exercise. When parents neglect their duties, the government swoops in and replaces them–as evidenced by this bill. As a result, parents must set the precedence for healthy eating and exercise habits so the First Lady doesn’t have to.”

There is a webiste, My food. My choice!, which has been set up to oppose this bill.  The article reports:

“Since the First Lady waged war against bake sales and the like, My Food. My Choice! has vouched for an annual celebration of “National Bake Sale Month” each December. In order to promote free choice while exposing the absurdity of this law, group members intend to celebrate this occasion to show the importance of bake sales for schools under great economic duress.”

It’s time for parents to reassert their rights.

Remember the days when doing a good deed was a good thing?  Unfortunately, in some places that is only a memory.

On Friday, CBS News in Baltimore reported on two men who rescued a deer that had fallen into the Patapsco River on Thursday night. 

The article reports:

“We seen the deer going under,” said Khalil Abusakran. “It couldn’t maintain.  It was starting to freeze, and it was really getting bad.”

The two men got a raft and rescued the deer.  After the rescue was complete, a natural resources police officer on the scene (who had watched the entire rescue) wrote both men a ticket. 

The article further states:

“The ticket itself doesn’t check off any specific violation, just a $90 fine.”

The men were told that the ticket was for not wearing life vests, although both are above the age where that is a requirement.

This is just wrong.  The way it should have happened is that the national resources police officer should have helped with the rescue and after he was off duty, they all went out for a beer.  That would have made much more sense.

The $ 1.1 tillion omnibus bill was defeated last week, and in its place Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that will fund the government through Tuesday.  The problem here is very simple–the current Congress wants to fund the government through 2011, thus totally negating the election that took place last month.  It’s very simple–the current Congress does not want to relinquish power and go home!

Today’s Wall Street Journal describes the discussion as follows:

“The president is pushing Congress for a yearlong resolution funding the government at current levels. That would put off the looming battle with resurgent Republicans to fund health care, but could also set back implementation of the program.

“But Republicans want a short-term funding bill so they can start the fight with the White House over government spending sooner rather than later.”

An article in The Hill yesterday reports:

“A short-term bill that runs through February or March, whatever is agreed to in the Senate, leaves House Democrats with just about no choice but to vote for a bill that will give Republicans control over the CR’s spending levels in the 112th Congress. 

“”Members understand we are at the mercy of Senate Republicans,” a Democratic leadership aide told The Hill tonight. 

“House Republicans are aiming to cut back spending to fiscal 2008 levels.” 

Note to current Congress:  Elections have consequences.  Go home.  Have a Merry Christmas.

KOKO.Com in Oklahoma City reported this week on a bank that was being checked by the Federal Reserve to make sure it was meeting their requirments.  Unfortunately, the interpretation of the requirements stepped over the line.

According to the article:

“The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say “Merry Christmas, God With Us.” were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank’s Internet site also had to be taken down.”

The examiners believed that the symbols and Bible verse were in violation of Regulation B, “…the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication … express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion.”

Good grief!  Have we become so paranoid about believing in anything that this is what the bank examiners were focused on?  If you believe in diversity, you allow different expressions of belief–even if they are not the same as yours.  Would a teller be allowed to wear a headscarf to comply with her religion or would that be seen as discriminatory? 

It is the Christmas season.  Christmas has been celebrated in America since before we were America.  Christianity is the dominant religion of the country.  That is simply a fact.  Placing a Bible verse on the website was a choice of the bank.  If people are offended by that, they can bank elsewhere.  It seems to me that based on what has happened in banking over the past two years, the examiners have more to worry about than Bible verses or Christian symbols.

Power Line posted an article yesterday explaining why the START Treaty should not be passed during the lame-duck Congress. 

The article points out:

“Matthew Spalding and Anna Leutheuser review the record since the passage in 1933 of the Twentieth Amendment limiting lame duck sessions. Spalding and Leutheuser write: “The State Department maintains a comprehensive listing of all agreements and treaties currently in force. While considerable research would be required to establish definitively that no treaty has ever been ratified by a lame duck session, it is of note that current research efforts have yet to find any such treaty.”

“Spalding and Leutheuser therefore conclude: “The ratification of New START by a lame duck Senate would not only ignore the message sent by voters in November but also break a significant precedent, consistent with the principle of consent, maintained by Presidents and Congresses since the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933.”

“In short, what Obama et al. are doing is wrong. It is akin to the procedural shenanigans in which they engaged to ram Obamacare through the Senate after the election of Scott Brown earlier this year. Someone really ought to call them on it.

Aside from the obvious question of whether or not this Congress should ratify this treaty rather than leave it for the newly elected Congress, there is the issue of the treaty itself.  Andrew McCarthy posted an articel at National Review Online yesterday detailing the problems with the treaty. 

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

“Russia’s strategic nukes will be reduced even if we do nothing, because Russia cannot keep up economically; the cap of 1,550 weapons works only against us. The impediment to modernization of our nuclear arsenal is not Russia; it is President Obama. He is demanding the bad New START agreement as his price for a modernization commitment that cannot be enforced. That’s a net security loss. Better to elect a new president in two years for whom national defense is a priority.”

I hope this Congress runs out of time before they get to approve this treaty.  I will be an impediment to peace–not a help.

The compromise worked out to maintain the current tax rates is a very mixed bag.  It is the product of compromise and thus will not make anyone totally happy.  Many Republicans who voted for it said that they did not like it, but were unwilling to risk the severe economic downturn that raising tax rates would have caused.  Many Democrats made the same statement.  The bill passed because it was probably less damaging than not passing it.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the tax bill debate, the omnibus spending bill was announced.  This $1.1 trillion piece of pork would have funded earmarks that were years old, funded the federal budget through 2011, and made sure Obamacare was properly funded during the coming year.  The omnibus spending bill would have successfully tied the hands of the incoming Congress in the area of cutting spending or defunding Obamacare.

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article on what actually went on behind the scenes in the defeat of the omnibus spending bill.  It is a very interesting article, and I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article.

The article points out:

“[It was] 100 percent grassroots … The American people took it down,” said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn,

Oklahoma Republican.Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , agreed, though with a far less triumphant tone.

 

“Today’s maneuvers demonstrate that the House and Senate Republican leadership from here on out should be considered a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tea Party,” Manley said.

 

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

Every ten years, the states redraw their Congressional districts according to the results of the national census.  Every state has its own process for the redistricting.  Some states create districts according to the political goals of whichever party is currently in power, and some states make an honest effort to redistrict in a non-partisan way.  In an effort to set up a fair process, Arizona created an Independent Redistricting Commission.  Unfortunately, that effort has not been totally successful.  The Verde Independent reported on December 14th that an applicant for the Commission may have been disqualified for religious reasons. 

According to the article:

“House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, said Monday the only comment made last week about the nomination of Tucsonan Christopher Gleason to the commission was by one screening panel member who pointed to Gleason’s involvement with a Christian organization. That panelist, Louis Araneta, an attorney and former judge, questioned whether Gleason could separate issues of church and state.

The article stated the basis of the comment:

“Gleason said his civic activities include involvement 4-Tucson, part of Vision 360 for Tucson. He said the goal of the organization is “to serve as a catalyst to engage the Christian Community in the needs and dreams of Tucson to bring about spiritual renewal and prosperity to the glory of God’ to make Tucson one of the most liveable cities in the world.

“Gleason said those words came directly from the organization’s mission statement.”

Since this information about the screening panel became public, the commission has denied that Mr. Gleason was turned down for the board due to his religion. 

Mr. Gleason commented on the decision:

“”If this is what the (screening) commission is doing on a non-judicial appointment, what are they doing with judicial appointments?’ Gleason asked. “Is there some sort of a non-religious litmus test, or non-faith litmus test for judicial appointments?'”

Religious discrimination is illegal.  I hope that if Mr. Cleason’s involvement in a Christian organization is the reason he was disqualified from the Redistricting Commission that the person (or people) on the screening committee who was guilty of religious discrimination will be taken off the committee.

Please follow the link to this video at YouTube.  The purpose of the video is raise awareness of bullying among young children.  I am shamelessly promoting it because two of my granddaughters are in it.  It is a good cause, and I am glad to see Here II Here (the music group involved) producing the video.  I wish them much success not only with their music, but also with the cause they are promoting.

This article is based on two articles–one Associated Press story posted at Yahoo News and one posted at the Attleboro Massachusetts Sun Chronicle on Wednesday.

The article at Yahoo News reports that at least nineteen states have cut back on their funding of a program that provides free medicine to people with HIV. 

The article quotes an HIV patient:

“”It’s very frustrating to be stuck in this position at this age and not feel well and be wondering if I am going to die any differently than the people who I helped die in the ’80s,” said Stephen Farrar, 55, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who has HIV and is going on Florida’s waiting list. “Am I going to be one of those people?””

Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the state is looking to cut back the state’s healthcare program in order to cut the state budget deficit.  The article explains:

“”Obviously something has to be done,” state Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, said. Timilty said the original hope with universal coverage was that by giving everyone health insurance people lacking coverage would stop unnecessary trips to hospital emergency rooms and use less expensive doctor’s visits for their care.

“The savings, however, have not materialized, he said.”

Remember the quote from Margaret Thatcher–

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” (Margaret Thatcher)

Mrs. Thatcher knew what she was talking about.  It is becoming obvious that the government cannot meet its financial obligations to care for HIV patients or to provide health care for everyone.  The thing that we need to remember here is that left to its own resources, the private sector might be able to meet these needs.  There are many programs established by private pharmaceutical companies to provide drugs at discounted rates to people who cannot afford them.  If private companies are allowed to pursue research and reap the benefits of their labor, they can afford to be charitable.  However, we need to remember that charity is a voluntary thing–not something to be legislated. 

If we are to see one of the best medical systems in the world continue to be one of the best medical systems in the world, we need to remove the government from the equation.  Ultimately, that will be the only answer that will result in the best care for everyone.

Haaretz.com reported yesterday on a statement made by Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh at a rally to mark the 23rd anniversary of the founding of Hamas

According to the article, this was the statement:

“”We say it with confidence as we said it five years ago when we formed our government, and we say it today: We will never recognize Israel,” Haniyeh told a crowd in Gaza City numbering tens of thousands.”

How would America have reacted if Mexico had refused to recognize the existence of Texas? 

The article further reports:

“”This year the rally is different from previous rallies. We want to send a message to the world and to the Zionist enemy that Hamas movement is a powerful Islamic Palestinian movement which can never be uprooted,” a rally organizer, who gave his name as Abu Hamza, said.”

There is no answer to peace in the Middle East as long as the supporters of a Palestinian state refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist.  I am not opposed to a Palestinian state (although that was the purpose of establishing what was originally known as Trans-Jordan), but I am not willing to see the establishment of a state that not only harbors terrorists, but is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

My reaction to the statements made at this rally is to arm Israel to the teeth to make sure she can defend herself when necessary and to make sure Israel has the weaponry to be proactive in protecting her security.  Hamas is like a next-door neighbor who attempts to rob your house any time you go out!

Yesterday, Newsbusters posted an article about a recent poll the Washington Post took, but failed to report in its newspaper. 

Newsbusters reports:

“A new ABC-Washingtoon Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor.  ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday’s World News, and Tapper added this was the health law’s “lowest level of popularity ever.”  But Tuesday’s Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper–even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama’s tax-and-umemployment-compensation deal has “broad bipartisan support.””

One of the foundations of a democracy is an unbiased media.  It is unfortunate that the current media does not take their job seriously enough to attempt to be unbiased in their reporting.

This article is based on two sources, CNS News and Heritage.org.  It is an understatement to say that I am furious at the proposed $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.  Last Christmas Congress voted on a very unpopular healthcare reform bill based on the theory that the voters would forget about the vote by November.  The voters didn’t forget, and the voters sent many of the Congressmen who voted for the healthcare reform bill packing.  Well, they evidently did not learn from their mistake–now they want to pass this pork-laden spending bill in a lame-duck session.  Please remember that Congress had the option of passing a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels–there was no reason to introduce this spending bill instead.  Also keep in mind that this bill could not have been written overnight–it had to be in the works for some time.  Maybe that’s why the Democrats were not concerned about not having passed a budget resolution–they had this up their sleeve.

The Heritage Foundation points out:

“But as bad as the earmarks are the spending increases are even worse. The bill adds $5.4 billion in new labor, education, and health spending including money for the failed Head Start program, the failed Race to the Top program, Pell Grants, and $1.25 billion in spending on Obamacare. No conservative who promised to repeal Obamacare can possibly support this bill.”

The article at CNS News reports the comments of Senator John McCain:

“McCain said if Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid insisting to moving ahead with “this monstrosity,” Republicans would ensu Americans are made aware of what it contains.

“”I’ll be joined by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to ensure that every single word of this bill is read aloud here on the Senate floor.”

“He urged Democrats to “rethink their strategy” – to drop the spending bill designed to fund the government through 2011 in favor of a continuing resolution that will keep the government operating for 45 days, enabling the next Congress to take up the matter in the new year.”

I am not a fan of John McCain, but he is absolutely right on this.

Please take note of any Congressman who supports this bill.  He needs to be voted out of office as soon as he comes up for re-election.  This is what the election in November was about.  Obviously, we will have to restate the same principles in 2012.  Let’s do it!

The Hill is reporting that today the Democrats in the Senate introduced a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through fiscal year 2011, according to Senate GOP sources.   That is truly amazing.  First of all it is amazing that they would introduce an omnibus spending bill in a lame-duck session with days remaining rather than a continuing resolution.

There will be an article in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal commenting on the fact that the lame-duck session is asking for votes on both the START Treaty and the omnibus spending bill.  The Journal reports:

“The last-minute omnibus should also offend Senators who claim to have heard the voters on November 2. This jam-job is a substitute for the 12 individual spending bills that Congress was supposed to have passed during the summer. But for the first time in modern memory, Democrats never got around to passing a budget outline, much less specific spending bills. So now they want to rush one giant bill into law when no one is paying attention.

“Congress does have to fund the government, but it can do that with a simple continuing resolution that maintains the status quo for three months or so until the next Congress gets up and running. The catch is that this would mean no earmarks, and no riders for this or that special interest that Members on the Appropriations Committee can write into a formal spending bill. This includes 10 or so GOP Appropriators, some of whom are leaving the Senate and want a last hurrah. Their fellow Senators deserve the chance to offer amendments on the floor at the very least, assuming their staff members get the time to read 2,000 pages.”

Last year the Democrats managed to push the healthcare bill through the House of Representatives on Christmas Eve when they thought no one was looking.  This year they are trying to push a pork-laden spending bill through the Senate in the hope that no one is looking.  Well, the American public is looking.  This is just nasty.  I would rather see the government have to shut down than to see this bill pass!