The Fox News Liveshots Blog reported yesterday on the request by Sharif El-Gamal, the head of SOHO Properties, the developers of the Ground Zero Mosque, for federal taxpayer money to help him build the controversial and contentious project.  The funds are designated to help lower Manhattan recover from the 9-11 terrorist attacks.  Wait a minute–I thought the people who supported the construction of this mosque said that it wasn’t part of ground zero (it was–part of the landing gear of one of the airplanes crashed through the roof of the building).

The request is for $5 million in federal money.  According to El-Gamal, the money would be used for “social service programs….such as domestic violence prevention, Arabic and other foreign language classes, programs and services for homeless veterans, two multi-cultural arts exhibits and immigration services.”  I have a problem with this statement–it is well known that in sharia law a husband is permitted to beat his wife–that fact was used in the defense of a Muslim husband in New Jersey.  If it is legal to beat your wife, what is domestic violence prevention?

The article reports:

“(Congressman Peter) King also notes that the reported $5 million request represents nearly one-third of all the $17 million that is now available. 265 groups have applied for the funding.”

Let’s see–Muslim terrorists destroyed the area and now a Muslim group wants American taxpayer money to build a monument to their victory on the site (see the historic record on where Muslims build mosques and what they represent).  If anyone approves the taxpayer money going to this project, they deserve to be impeached or fired, whichever applies.

On Monday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article on the New York Times story that the House Ethics Committee has postponed the ethics trial of Maxine Waters because it found more evidence of direct intervention by her office to benefit the bank in which her husband owned a substantial interest.  According to newly found e-mails, her chief of staff directly coordinated with other members of the House Financial Services Committee on behalf of OneUnited. 

Mr. Morrissey reports:

“That opens up questions about the ethics not just of Waters but of those committee members who cooperated with Moore and his pleas for “small bank” assistance. OneUnited ended up with millions in TARP money, and unlike other applicants, got to count that cash among its assets before actually receiving the money.  The preferential treatment the bank received — unique among over 700 applicants for TARP money — seems oddly coincidental to Waters’ status and the newly exposed machinations of Moore on her behalf.”

This may make for a very interesting investigation.  Mr. Morrissey concludes:

“How long will it be before the House takes up this case?  One would presume that the Democrats would want to conclude the ethics trial before the end of the lame-duck session in order to have a majority on the House floor for Waters’ eventual punishment, but the news of the e-mails may have them hoping they can get everyone to forget about it forever.  That’s not likely to happen, but it may be a little more likely that a future Ethics committee may be looking into the actions of other Financial Services Committee members.”

I have to agree that the Democrats would probably want this to magically disappear into oblivion or want to deal with it while they are still in the majority in the House.  To have this case still open in January seems to me to be a very risky move–if I were on the House Financial Services Committee, I wouldn’t be sleeping soundly right now!

Townhall.com has posted an article about some of the legislative goals that have failed in Congress that President Obama will attempt to enact through other means.  Two of these items are the implementation of Cap and Trade through the Environmental Protection Agency and the implementation of ‘card check’ through the National Labor Relations Board.

The article reports:

“The EPA is currently soliciting public comments for its plan to use the Clean Air Act of 1970 to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. The Clean Air Act, as the name indicates, is designed to fight against pollution — unhealthy chemicals that are belched into the air by smokestacks. It was passed to fight sulfur dioxide, particulates, nitrous oxides and other chemicals that cause human diseases. To use it to fight carbon dioxide — which we all breathe without ill effects — because of concerns about global warming is a perversion of the law.”

Does this mean the EPA is going to control how fast we breathe?

On card check, the article reports:

“Meanwhile, Craig Becker, the former chief counsel of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — now the head of the NLRB — has secured a 3-2 party line majority to repeal the Dana decision, which mandates secret ballots in unionization elections. The NLRB will rule that if a majority of workers check off that they want a union on cards, then the union will automatically be approved without a secret ballot vote of the entire workforce.”

Both of these moves are going to have a very negative impact on our economy.  I wonder if Congress has the power to undo these decrees.  Hopefully, the new Congress seated in January will be able to undo the damage that would be done by putting these two ideas into effect.

My Way reported yesterday that cabinet secretaries, top congressional leaders and an exclusive group of senior U.S. officials are exempt from toughened new airport screening procedures when they fly commercially with government-approved federal security details.  Pilots and flight attendants are also exempt from the procedures.  How about also exempting 70-year-old grandmothers and children under the age of 10?

The horror stories coming out about these new procedures are coming fast and furious–from women chosen because of their body types, to small children being touched inappropriately, to a man whose colostomy bag was broken during the patdown.  The horror stories, combined with the fact that the people who may be a danger are being ignored while grandmothers and young women and children are being routinely groped, are reason enough to find a different way to do this.  There are serious questions as to whether these searches are constitutional, and I hope there will be some class action suits coming quickly.

The current screening procedure is not going to make us any safer–there are doubts as to whether the new procedures would have discovered the underwear bomber or anyone else carrying a small amount of explosive powder.  If the fear is that an explosive device would be brought on a plane, just let the bomb-sniffing dogs roam freely through our airports, or profile people with certain VISA stamps on their passports.

Today’s CNS News posted an article today about the shelling of an island near the disputed sea border between North and South Korea. 

According to the article:

“The skirmish began when Pyongyang warned the South to halt military drills in the area, according to South Korean officials. When Seoul refused and began firing artillery into disputed waters, albeit away from the North Korean shore, the North retaliated by bombarding the small island of Yeonpyeong, which houses South Korean military installations and a small civilian population.”

There is a lot going on here other than the shelling of the island. 

NPR reported yesterday:

“”We walked over to the window and that’s where we were stunned, because we saw row after row after row of centrifuges.”

“So says Robert Carlin, one of three Stanford University scientists who reported over the weekend about what they said is a “modern, small industrial-scale uranium enrichment facility with 2,000 centrifuges” at Yongbyon, North Korea.”

This is part of a much larger picture.  There are a few things to look at here when hearing news of the attack on South Korea by North Korea.  First of all, North Korea is not able to feed its starving population.  Their only export is weapons.  The money gained from weapons sales is their only hope for sustaining a viable economy.  North Korea is in the process of a leadership transition.  Kim Jong-il is probably dying and will be replaced by 26-year old Kim Jong-Un.  I have no idea how happy the people of North Korea are with the leadership change. 

Also keep in mind that North Korea is essentially a puppet state of China.  Regardless of the fact that America is a major trading partner of China, the government of China does not wish us well.  China is also closely aligned with Iran.  Any disruption by North Korea tends to take the focus of Americans off Iran’s nuclear program and allows Iran to move forward under less scrutiny. 

There is also a history of North Korea making aggressive moves during the American holiday season.  I am not sure what this latest provocation is about, but how the Obama Administration handles it is important.  Weakness will create more aggressive behavior from North Korea and too much strength will create a war situation.  This requires a very deft political hand.

Congress has not yet reached agreement on whether or not to extend the current tax rates (the extension being debated is not a tax cut for anyone–it is merely a continuation of the current tax rates). 

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday about some aspects of the debate.  The article points out:

“According to Continetti (Matthew Continetti of the Weekly Standard), the current Democratic strategy is to extend current middle class tax rates “permanently” while setting an expiration for upper-income rates. From the Democrats’ perspective, this approach makes plenty of sense. Raising taxes on the “rich,” which includes small businesses, is politically dangerous now, while the economy stagnates. The Dems likely would be far better off trying to soak the “rich” later on when (1) the issue is no longer coupled with tax rates for the those who make less than $250,000 and (2) the economy, one hopes, has improved.”

Decoupling the tax rates of those who make more than $250,000 from those who make less than $250,000 is a really bad idea.  (Just in case anyone assumes that I have a personal interest in this, I am not in danger of making $250,000 a year).  Unfortunately, inflation happens.  It will probably take at least ten years, but we will reach a point where $250,000 is middle class.  At that point the majority of Americans will be paying a higher tax rate than they imagined.

The article also points out:

“But the biggest risk would be incurred by President Obama. He still “owns” the economy in the public’s view. It would, I think, be astonishingly stupid if, in Continettit’s words, “the same team that brought you Obamacare [were to] produce, through its inaction, the largest tax increase in history.””

John Hinderaker at Power Line also points out that the Democrats in recent years, for reasons unknown, have become the party of the wealthy.  To raise taxes on the wealthy might easily cost the Democrats that demographic.

It will be interesting to see if the Democrat-controlled Congress will deal with the extension of the current tax rates in the lame-duck session or if they will let the Republicans deal with it in January.

“Humanity has won its battle. Liberty now has a country.”

                Marquis De Lafayette

Today’s Worcester Telegram posted an article about a Worcester Election Commission Monday night. 

According to the article:

“In sworn affidavits presented to the commission last night, most of their allegations were leveled against the community activist group Neighbor to Neighbor. The poll observers said they repeatedly saw representatives of the group accompanying people into voting booths and telling them how to vote.”

Len Mead, who attended the meeting, noted the following:

“The memo supporters responded saying that when volunteers spotted illegalities they were constantly rebuffed or treated with hostility by Democrat Poll Wardens who said the challenges to the eligibility of voters was “discrimination.”   Further the election commission was told that in one instance, at least 20 people over the course of a day reported being called by “Neighbor to Neighbor” people who identified themselves as calling from the Election Commission with instructions that voting was required.  One individual stated, “They called to send me here – what do I do.”  Another said, “I never voted before, I need you to check it over” and the “help” was given in hushed tones, in Spanish, with much touch of the ballot – pointing to spots on the ballot, and with encouraging remarks as instructions were followed.   

“The Election Commission promised to send the 12 page list of voter fraud allegations to the Secretary of State and ask for clarification of some of the issues raised, particularly the issue of whether mentally incompetent individuals under guardianship should be allowed to vote at all even with “assistance.” 

“When asked for an estimated date when a response and action might be forthcoming,  an Election Commission spokesman responded, “We couldn’t even give a range of dates knowing the Secretary of State has many issues before them now.””

One of the problems with living in a one-party state is that the voters have no way of knowing if the complaints brought on Monday night will be seriously considered by the Secretary of State.  This is not a partisan issue–it is a voter integrity issue.  A democracy (or representative republic) cannot survive unless the integrity of the voting process is protected.  I hope the Massachusetts Secretary of State chooses to protect the election process.

Further information on this story, including the letter of complaint written to the Worcester Board of Elections Commission can be found at Fleming and Hayes.  Please follow this link for more information.

This article is based on two articles, one by Guy Benson at Townhall.com and one at the Weekly Standard Blog.  At Townhall, Guy Benson reports on a regulation in Obamacare that allows the Health and Human Services department to mandate insurance companies to spend at least 80 cents of the premium dollar on medical care and quality.  For employer plans covering more than 50 people, the requirement is 85 cents.  Insurers that fall short of the mark will have to issue their customers a rebate.  I wonder if the 80 cents includes customer service representatives.  Can you imagine the disaster that will occur as a result of this law if customer service is not included in the 80 cents?  When did the government discover the right to tell private corporations how they can spend their money?

The article at Townhall further explains:

“This is incredible.  By its own actuary’s admission, the federal government’s new healthcare overhaul fails to curb spiraling costs — which was a prime raison detre for the new legislation in the first place.  Not satisfied with missing the mark on Obamacare, and racking up tens of trillions in unfunded government-run healthcare liabilities, the federal government is now insisting that private insurers accede to its proven incompetence infinite wisdom on cost-reduction — under penalty of law.” 

Meanwhile, the Weekly Standard Blog reports

“The Congressional Budget Office projects that Medicare Advantage funding would be cut by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars ($254 billion) in Obamacare’s real first decade (2014 to 2023), which amounts to cuts of about $25,000 for each of the roughly 10 million Medicare Advantage beneficiaries. Those cuts wouldn’t be made if Obamacare is repealed in January of 2013, but $8 billion will be cut by the end of 2012.  These Medicare cuts — both the $8 billion and the $254 billion — wouldn’t be used to make Medicare more solvent over the long haul, but would instead be spent on Obamacare.” 

This is no way to run a healthcare program.  We need to repeal and replace as soon as possible.

The Boston Herald is reporting today:

“Potheads who’ve found the grass is greener under the state’s mellowed-out marijuana law have racked up as much as $64,500 in unpaid fines in Boston alone, thumbing their noses at hundreds of citations that cops have written up, but authorities are powerless to enforce.”

Is this really a surprise?  The Herald further reports:

“Of the more than 760 $100 fines written up in Boston this year as of Nov. 4, police list 645 as unpaid with no way of accounting if any were cleared up at courts or by drop-ins to City Hall, a Herald review found.”

If this new law was supposed to raise money for the state, it has obviously failed. 

The Herald points out the problem:

“Cheryl Sibley, chief administrator of Boston Municipal Court, said there is “very limited recourse” for the courts to force payment if potheads don’t request a hearing to fight the ticket and police don’t seek a civil contempt hearing to enforce it.”

Meanwhile, the other side of the story:

“But Bill Downing, director of the Massachusetts Cannabis Reform Coalition, insists the new right to toke should not have a price tag.

“”There’s this concept called freedom. The people of Massachusetts voted to tell the cops to leave these people alone. If they don’t pay their tickets, who cares? What, are you going to float city and town budgets on the backs of the pot-smoking public?””

I have two comments on this.  If cigarette smokers pay excessive taxes on their cigarettes, why shouldn’t pot smokers pay to smoke?  Also, no one has caused a car accident because they were driving under the influence of tobacco, can pot smokers say the same?

Yesterday I posted an article about a bill in the lame-duck session of Congress that would allow the Attorney General to shut down a website if he (or she) perceived copyright infringement issues.  This could be done on the Attorney General’s orders without proof or other inconvenient items.  The danger here of course is that the power would be used politically.  I say that to preface an article that shows how the internet can influence our perspective and refresh our memories.

I guess I am naive to believe that politicians tell the truth, but I actually believe that some of them do.  The internet, even with its faults, makes it very easy to review the recent history of a person’s statements.

When I watched Fox News Sunday yesterday, I heard Hillary Clinton say that she is not runing for President in 2012, 2016, or ever again.  RealClearPolitics has the video and the write-up of Hillary saying, “I am very happy doing what I’m doing and I am not in any way interested in or persuing anything in elective office.”  As soon as I heard that I was reminded of a previous statement Mrs. Clinton made in when she ran for the Senate in New York.  When she initially ran in 2000, she vowed to finish her term–not run for President.  When I went looking for news reports from 2006 to see if she made the same pledge when she ran for re-election, I couldn’t find any reports on whether or not she had made the pledge.  If anyone reading this has better information, I would love to hear it.  My question is this, “When Mrs. Clinton ran for re-election to the Senate in 2006, did she say she would finish her term and not run for President?”  Was her statement yesterday more of the same?  I don’t know.  This could be an interesting year. 

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act was introduced on 9/20/2010 by Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont.  On 11/18/2010 it was placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 648.  On Thursday, the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill.

Thomas.gov summarizes the bill as follows:

“Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act – Amends the federal criminal code to authorize the Attorney General (AG) to commence an action for injunctive relief against a domain name used by an Internet site that is “dedicated to infringing activities,” even where such a domain name is not located in the United States. Defines an Internet site that “dedicated to infringing activities” as a site that is: (1) subject to civil forfeiture; (2) designed primarily to offer goods or services in violation of federal copyright law; or (3) selling counterfeit goods.

“Requires the AG to maintain a public listing of domain names that the Department of Justice (DOJ) determines are dedicated to infringing activities but for which the AG has not filed an action. Allows parties to petition the AG to remove such a domain name from the list and obtain judicial review of the final determination in a civil action.”

This really sounds like a good idea, but there are a few problems.  A website called Wired.com points out:

“…bill that would give the Attorney General the right to shut down websites with a court order if copyright infringement is deemed “central to the activity” of the site — regardless if the website has actually committed a crime. The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is among the most draconian laws ever considered to combat digital piracy, and contains what some have called the “nuclear option,” which would essentially allow the Attorney General to turn suspected websites “off.””

Wired further points out:

“But the law’s critics do not believe that giving the federal government the right to shut down websites at will based upon a vague and arbitrary standard of evidence, even if no law-breaking has been proved, is a particularly good idea.”

The idea here is to stop the pirating of music, music videos, and creative properties where the creators should be paid for their work.  That is a noble idea.  Pirating music is not a good thing, but it is evidently fairly common among college students.  I have no problem with efforts to put a stop to this practice, but the risk of abusing the law are tremendous.

If the AG wants to shut down a site that is politically opposed to an administration, this law would give them the right to claim copyright violations and shut down the site without due process.  I don’t trust any politician with that kind of power. 

This is a well-intentioned bill that needs more work.  I am hopeful that it will not be rushed through in the lame-duck session.  It needs some sort of controls built into it that will protect free speech rights of people who disagree with whatever party is in power.  It would be a really good idea to postpone this until it can be looked at more closely and brought into line with First Amendment rights.

Today’s Washington Post posted an article by Katherine Ellison, the mother of a child (now a teenager) who was diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity (ADHD) disorder in 2004.  Mrs. Ellison took an aggressive approach to dealing with the disorder, and the article details her dealings with both her son’s behavior and the teachers who were faced with having him in their classrooms.  I would like to say up front that this article was significant to me as a mother who has raised an ADHD child, who is married to an ADHD husband, whose father-in-law was probably ADHD, and who has a grandson who is ADHD.  I have seen the disorder up close and personal.  I would also like to add that based on my observations, ADHD acts very differently in girls than it does in boys.

Mrs. Ellison points out:

“…the U.S. pharmaceutical industry, which by one measure sells more than $5 billion worth of ADHD medications each year – and which only in the United States and New Zealand may market directly to the public – but a growing league of all-but-unregulated, usually costly and sometimes wildly imaginative alternatives, including herbal supplements, complicated exercise regimes to stimulate specific brain regions, magnetic mattresses, personal coaches and therapy “assisted” by dolphins.”

The article also pointed out:

“At the same time, I discovered that some of the most effective interventions are also the simplest and cheapest. Such as educating myself enough to know how much of my son’s behavior is truly within his control. And getting in the habit, with my husband, of finding something to praise about him every day (“Way to breathe!” we began, although we soon found more substantial causes for celebration).

“Regular physical exercise, I found, can also be hugely helpful – and this strategy is backed by a significant amount of research. Russell Barkley, a leading ADHD researcher, cites studies showing that rigorous exercise can increase the brain’s capacity for willpower and emotional self-control, arguably the most important skills lacking in many of the clinically distracted. So too, he says, can maintaining adequate levels of glucose, which has led me to stop pestering my wiry, active son about his many trips to the refrigerator.”

I am not a doctor, but I can confirm a good part of what she is saying.  In the case of my daughter and grandson, sports was a wonderful thing.  It seems as if you have to wear these children out a bit physically before they can settle down and study.  The other thing I have learned in the case of my husband is that coffee (caffeine) seems to settle his brain down to the point where he can concentrate.  I have also learned in the case of my daughter that the hayfever medicine that was supposed to make her sleepy had the opposite effect.  Also, like my husband, coffee slows her down so that she can function more easily.

I  have no idea what the solution to ADHD is.  I commend the author of the article for her willingness to challenge some of the conventional wisdom and find her own solutions.  I know that as someone watching the fourth generation of ADHD, that may actually be the only answer.  Bless you, Mrs. Ellison.  I wish you continued success is dealing with the problem.

Just one further note.  So far all the family members with ADHD have been very bright and very successful.  I wish that for you also.

A friend of mine e-mailed this to me–The Seasons Of Life.  Since every person alive has experienced good times, bad times, and had to accept the fact that we are all getting older, I would like to share this video.  Please follow the link for a truly beautiful video.  Thank you, Pat, for sending it!

Unfortunately, I have no answers to the problem cited in this story.  I am, however, very concerned with what has been going on in American elections in the past few cycles–false registrations, illegal voters, etc. 

Hot Air reported Saturday on two new voting machines found in Buffalo, New York.  In a different incident, the article reports:

“This story is hardly the only report of problems. Ed Morrissey previously reported on broad problems with the Tim Bishop race in Long Island where a hand recount produced a startlingly different total than the optical scan machines recorded. In other precincts we saw reports of delays in getting counts out and candidates suddenly doing surprisingly well in areas where they had been consistently polling weakly.”

This is disturbing.  We have seen similar incidents on Massachusetts where when a recount for a state office was done, eighteen votes simply disappeared.  I hope that sometime in the very near future we can create a more reliable vote audit trail.

There is so much reported about the war in Afghanistan that it is sometimes hard to know who to believe.  As anyone who reads this blog regularly knows, the source I trust is Michael Yon.  He is a former Green Beret who has been embedded with the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since December 2004.  Incidently, at his website he currently has some beautiful pictures of the Himalaya near Mount Everest where he has been climbing recently. 

He posted a link on Facebook today:

“I put weight in this report because I know the reporter, Mike Gudgell, from Iraq. We spent much time talking there starting in 2007 and have stayed in touch quite often. We met again earlier this year in Afghanistan and talked all morning. Mike Gudgell is very smart and no nonsense. (He married no …nonsense, too: His wife climbed Mt. Everest.) Mike seems to sense some change, as have I.

“Have said it a thousand times, but will say it again. I put particular weight on General Petraeus’s assessment. “P4″ is far too smart and long-thinking to BS about the situation. He knows that someday this war will end, and all that will be left for him will be his track record. I watch him closely. He’s going to give his honest assessment.”

The article he is referring to is found at abc news.  The article was written on November 9 of this year.

Yesterday Fox News posted an article detailing how two different churches handled the issue of their congregations using Facebook. 

The article reports that Rev. Cedric Miller of Living Word Christian Fellowship Church in Neptune, N.J.,ordered about 50 married officials at his church to delete their accounts with social networking sites or resign from their positions. Miller said some 20 couples had run into marital troubles because their spouses connected with or re-ignited a relationship with an ex-flame.

In contrast, the article reports:

“Danielle Hartland, communications director of Grace Church in Erie, Pa., says Facebook itself is not the problem, because it’s morally neutral. “The thing is, Facebook is neither evil or good; it just exists,” she says. “What you do with it determines what it becomes.””

The article details the stands that a number of churches have taken on the use of Facebook and notes that some churches are using the site to increase communication among their members.  Please follow the link to the article, it is an interesting report.

On a personal note, I am on Facebook, as are many members of my church.  Sometimes it is an easy way to convey last minute changes in events or plans and sometimes it is an easy way to encourage someone if you don’t have the time for a visit or a phone call.  Because many of the young people are also on Facebook and are friends with many of the adults in the church and the leadership of the church, it is a good way to keep up with the interests of the younger members of the church.  I personally think the good uses of Facebook outweigh the bad.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal‘s Washington Wire Blog reported on the game of chicken currently being played in Congress and with the White House on extending the current tax rates (I did not call them the Bush Tax Cuts because they are not tax cuts for anyone–they are simply an extension of the current tax rates).

According to the article, this is the basic battle:

“House and Senate Democrats kicked things off Thursday by declaring that they’ll bring legislation to the floor of the lame-duck session to extend the current tax rates for families earning less than $250,000 a year, but not for wealthier taxpayers.

“House Republican Leader and Speaker-in-Waiting John Boehner, in this week’s least surprising development, said Republicans will oppose any bill that fails to extend all the Bush tax cuts.”

Speaker-in-Waiting Boehner has stated, “The last thing our economy needs right now is a massive tax hike on families and small businesses — and that’s what the House Democratic leaders’ plan would mean.  We will oppose their job-killing tax hike and do everything we can to stop it.”  I hope he sticks to his guns, because he is right.  To split the extension of the tax rates according to income will allow Congress to lower that income ceiling in the future and will create a lot of problems for small business owners who file their business taxes as individual returns.

The Democrats are suggesting all sorts of policies including a deal that would extend all middle-class tax cuts, retain lower rates on dividends and capital gains, raise the threshold on the top rates from $250,000 to $1 million, and cut the corporate tax rate in half and suspend the payroll tax, both for employers and employees, for the first six months of 2011.

Why don’t they just extend the current tax rates and let people and businesses plan for the coming year?

There seems to be a lot of unhappiness right now about the recent measures added to the airport screening process in America.  The New York Post recently posted an op-ed column on the subject by Michael Totten, an independent foreigh correspondent who does a lot of traveling in the Middle East.

Mr. Totten points out that in Israel, a country that is under constant threat of terrorism, there is profiling–but it is not racial.  As an author who travels through the Middle East regularly to both Israel and Arab countries, Mr. Totten is routinely questioned closely when he flies out of an Israeli airport because of the various stamps on his passport. 

Mr. Totten points out:

“The system has  its advantages, though, aside from the fact that no one looks or reaches into anyone’s pants. Israelis don’t use security theater to make passengers feel like they’re safe.  They use real security measures to ensure that travelers actually are safe.  Even when suicide bombers exploded themselves almost daily in Israeli cities, not a single one managed to get through that airport.”

There are a few problems with trying to import this method to the United States–we are a much bigger country with many more airports.  To put the Israeli program in place would require much more intensive training of TSA agents (similar to the training of border patrol agents or customs officials).  I am reminded of  the fact that the Millennium Bomber was caught because a United States customs inspector, Diana Dean, decided to have a secondary Customs search of Ahmed Ressam’s car performed, based on the way that Ressam was acting–not due to any racial profiling or increased searches due to terrorist threats.

On a recent cross country flight, as we sat in the waiting area after going through security, a drug or explosive-sniffing dog moved around the waiting area.  It would be interesting to know how effective that is and if it could be more widely used.  As I waited to catch a ferry in southern New Jersey a number of years ago, there were police dogs roaming the parking lot.  I believe they were bomb-sniffing dogs, but I am not sure. 

It does seem that there are alternatives to the current security measures being used at our airports.  We need a system that works, that realistically profiles and does not waste the time or invade the privacy of young children, little old ladies (as a little old lady, I like my privacy!), and other non-threatening groups..

Today the MontgomeryAdvertiser.com website reported that the Senate approved a measure to fund $1.2 billion in payments to black farmers for years of discrimination by federal agriculture officials, moving the historic legislation a step forward.  I am posting this article because I have a lot of questions about this legislation.  The Library of Congress website (Thomas.gov) is down for maintenance, so I am left to my own resources.

According to the article:

“”This has been a very, very long process,” said John Boyd, president of the National Black Farmers Association. “But we made a huge step for justice tonight … It’s bigger than the black farmers. It’s a big step in the right direction for race relations.”

“The measure must now go to the House, where Democratic leaders have vowed to take it up before the new Congress begins next year. The $4.6 billion measure includes money to pay American Indians as part of a class-action lawsuit.”

Right off the top, I would like to say that it is horrible that the government discriminated against anyone.  That is just wrong and hopefully does not happen anymore.  But I am not sure that throwing $4.6 billion dollars into a pot to make up for past discrimination is the answer.

The American taxpayers who are paying this money are not the ones who discriminated.  If government officials discriminated, they should be the ones held responsible.  My next concern is whether or not the $4.6 billion dollars will go to the people who were discriminated against.  Will it go to the people harmed by discrimination or to some already wealthy lawyers?  What are the percentages?  Lawyers are entitled to make money, but theoretically, they should not profit by someone else’s misfortune–the majority of the money should go to the people wronged.

As I stated earlier, I have more questions about this than answers.

Today’s Washington Examiner reports that the annual salary of American Federation of Teachers (AFT) president Rhonda “Randi” Weingarten was $428,284 in salary and benefits during fiscal year 2010.  Normally, there would be no reason to be concerned what anyone’s annual salary or benefits are, but when you look at some of the statements Ms. Weingarten is making, it changes the picture.

According to the article, Ms. Weingarten’s comment on the report by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform was:

“While we’re grateful the commission’s chairmen understood the need to hold education investment sacrosanct count on a vigorous fight fight from us over proposed cuts to Social Security and Medicare that would hurt an already-ailing middle class. Shared sacrifice means holding millionaires responsible for their fair share of taxes and ending truly wasteful spending, not sawing off essential lifelines for the middle class, who desperately are trying to keep their heads above water in these precarious economic times. We can help solve the financial future of Social Security and Medicare by investing in putting our people back to work, so they can pay into these programs.  Nothing is more important to the future solvency of the country.”

The article further reports:

“When The Examiner called the AFT to ask whether Weingarten was planning on taking a paycut to demonstrate her belief in shared sacrifice, the spokesman said no.  “No, absolutely not.  She works 24/7 on behalf of union members and the people we serve.  Making sure that people get a great education in public schools in America.  She works to the bottom of her soul.  You can’t put a price tag on that.””

I guess my real first question is, “Where is the $428,284 coming from–union dues?”  The thing to remember here is that we are not dealing with the head of a company that is manufacturing a product or actually providing a service to the public.  This lady is being paid a very large sum of money to make sure teachers (who are generally public employees) receive generous salaries and benefits.  In some states, those generous salaries and benefits are causing major financial difficulties for the states.  I don’t ever want to see the government dictating salaries or benefits for employers or employees, but in this case, the numbers do seem rather high.

Yesterday The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room reported that the Republicans in Congress are planning to force a vote on defunding National Public Radio (NPR) in response to the firing of Juan Williams last month. 

According to the article:

“House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (Va.) and Rep. Doug Lamborn (Colo.) said that cutting funds to the publicly subsidized news organization was the winner of the conference’s weekly “YouCut” contest, in which the public votes online on spending items they want eliminated.”

I have mixed emotions about this.  I totally disagree with the funding of NPR on principle.  I think the network is perfectly capable of funding itself through good marketing techniques–Big Bird, Elmo, Bob the Builder, etc. ought to be able to raise a significant amount of revenue.  I think the firing of Juan Williams was wrong, but I think that is between NPR and Juan Williams.  In firing Juan Williams, NPR revealed that it is not a well-balanced source of information, but again, to me, that is between NPR and Juan Williams.

The article points out:

“Under the “YouCut” program, the GOP has promised to force votes on spending cuts chosen by online voters each week that the House is in session. Each week, a series of proposed spending cuts is posted online and the House GOP takes up the cut chosen by the most voters.

“The NPR defunding defeated the termination of “Exchanges with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners Program” and the Presidential Election Fund.

“Nearly every one of the items proposed in the Democratic-controlled House has failed to pass. Republicans take control of the House next year.”

I suspect that most of these cuts will continue to be voted down during the next month or so, but it will be interesting to see what happens when the Republicans take control of the House of Representatives in January.  Remember, the House of Representatives holds the purse strings–they control the spending, and the voters made it rather clear in this last election how they felt about continuing the current spending habits.

Hot Air reported yesterday that Harry Reid is planning to bring the DREAM Act to the floor of the Senate for a standalone vote during the lame-duck session.  This is a very interesting move.  The DREAM Act is the legilation that will give legal residency to immigrants who arrived in the United States before age 16 and resided here for at least five years, graduated from high school and completed two years of college or military service. They would be subject to background checks, could not have a criminal record, and even if successful would still not be eligible for benefits like Pell grant scholarships.  There is no current age limit on these immigrants–they could presently be in their fifties and still meet the requirements. 

Allahpundit at Hot Air comments:

“What I can’t figure out is whether Reid is moving on this knowing that vulnerable centrists like McCaskill and Tester who are up in 2012 will be inclined to filibuster, or whether he actually thinks he has the votes either via reluctant Blue Dog types signing on or moderate Republicans breaking with the GOP. I assume it’s the former and that he’s only pushing this in the lame duck session so that he can tell amnesty shills he gave it his very best shot when it fails. But if he can keep his caucus together, he only needs one Republican to push it through. Gulp.

“They’re also pressing ahead with DADT (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell) in the lame duck. And to think, I thought December would be a slow news month.”

I’m really not quite sure why the Democrats are bringing these things up in the lame-duck session.  It may be that they believe that this is their last best chance to get extreme legislation through.  It will be interesting to see how the more conservative Democrats who have just been voted out of office react to these bills.  After January, there will be very few (if any) conservative Democrats in the House of Representatives.  The conservative Democrats who were voted into office on the promise that they would maintain their conservative positions were overpowered by Nancy Pelosi, voted to pass liberal bills, and have been voted out of office.  The Democrats remaining in the House of Representatives are a much more liberal-leaning group than during the past four years.

There will be an article in the future on the trial of Ahmed Ghailani that contains links to articles that state facts–this is simply a rant.

Ahmed Ghailani was found guilty of conspiracy to blow up government buildings in the al-Qaida attacks on two U.S. embassies in 1998, but he was acquitted on more than 280 other charges. Because some of the evidence that would have been permissible in a military tribunal was not allowed in a civilian trail, the testimony of the man that sold Ahmed Ghailani the dynamite to blow up the embassies was not allowed.  That is the reason Ahmed Ghailani was convicted only on the conspiracy charge and not the 224 murder charges and other charges.

The logic in this conviction is also amazing.  He is convicted on conspiring to blow up a building, but not convicted in the deaths of the people killed when he blew up the building.  That makes my head hurt.  Even life in prison is too kind to this man.  During World War II there would have been no question of a military tribunal and a death sentence.

We need to remember that Ahmed Ghailani is not an American citizen.  He is not entitled to the civil rights of American citizens.  He is a man who is responsible for the deaths of Americans and other innocent people working in a embassy.  He is a foreign terrorist.  Why in the world are we treating him with kid gloves? 

My heart goes out to the families of the people who were killed in the embassy bombings.  Hopefully they will see some sort of justice and closure on these events in the future.

Townhall.com posted an article by John Stossel about some of the myths involved in eating ‘free-range’ beef. 

The article reports:

“Don’t believe me? Dr. Jude Capper, an assistant professor of dairy sciences at Washington State University, has studied the data (http://tinyurl.com/36492d8).

“Capper said: “There’s a perception out there that grass-fed animals are frolicking in the sunshine, kicking their heels up full of joy and pleasure. What we actually found was from the land-use basis, from the energy, from water and, particularly, based on the carbon footprints, grass-fed is far worse than corn-fed.”

“How can that be?

“”Simply because they have a far lower efficiency, far lower productivity. The animals take 23 months to grow. (Corn-fed cattle need only 15.) That’s eight extra months of feed, of water, land use, obviously, and also an awful lot of waste. If we have a grass-fed animal, compared to a corn-fed animal, that’s like adding almost one car to the road for every single animal. That’s a huge increase in carbon footprints.””

The article further states:

“But what about those hormones the cows are given? Surely that cannot be good for us.

“”What we have to remember is every food we eat — whether it’s tofu, whether it’s beef, whether it’s apples — they all contain hormones. There’s nothing, apart from salts, that doesn’t have some kind of hormone in them.”

“So the next time you reach for that package of beef in the grocery store tagged with all the latest grass-fed, free-range lingo, remember: Not only does it often cost twice as much, but there’s no evidence it’s better for the environment or better for you.”

The bottom line here is simple–if eating free-range beef or chicken makes you feel better, then go to it, just don’t think you are really doing anything significant for the environment or yourself.  Free-range may (or may not) be kinder to the animals (I suspect that depends on the farm), but it really doesn’t make a positive difference in the long run!