One of the ironies of the NPR’s firing of Juan Williams has been how fast the conservative media rose to his defense.  That might have been partially because he was fired for something he said on a ‘conservative’ show, but more than likely it was because he presents himself as such a total gentleman.  I am a regular viewer of Fox News Sunday and Special Report on Fox News and have watched Juan defend his views on the panels often.  I generally disagree with almost everything he says, but I love to hear Juan and Brit Hume discuss an issue.  There is an amazing amount of knowledge and logic between the two of them.  Anyway, it was refreshing to see one of my favorite left-leaning columnists come to Juan’s defense. 

In yesterday’s Washington Examiner, Susan Estrich posted a column about the firing of Juan Williams.  I also need to mention here that Susan is another ‘liberal’ commentator who is not afraid to appear in ‘conservative’ media. 

In the beginning of the article, she quotes Jesse Jackson stating his feelings about hearing footsteps and basing his level of fear of being robbed on the race of the person following him.  She compares that to the statement Juan Williams made about seeing people in Muslim garb on an airplane.  The thing that she points out is that firing Juan Williams is not going to change the fact that the people who attacked us on September 11th were Muslims or that the people making threats against America almost every day are generally Muslims.

Ms. Estrich points out in her article that she and Juan Williams have been regular contributors to Fox News for more than a decade.  She describes herself and Juan as part of the “balance” in “fair and balanced.” 

At the end of the article she concludes:

“Others are free to disagree, on both Fox News and NPR.  But to fire an analyst for expressing an honest opinion violates the very principles of free expression and the First Amendment on which NPR so often prides itself.”

The kind of rational discussion of issues that Juan Williams and Susan Estrich engage in on a regular basis is a healthy thing for our country.  Although I believe that there are some principles that should not be compromised, I also believe there are a lot of issues where alll viewpoints need to be discussed rationally.  Rational discussions can sometimes be hard to find (on both sides).  I thank Juan Williams and Susan Estrich for being part of many of the rational discussions that do occur.

The headline of this article sounds like a total impossibility–just as forced healthcare insurance did only a year ago.  However, there is something brewing for the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress (assuming the Republicans increase their numbers in Congress, which I think they will) that all Americans need to be aware of.

The information on this possible legislation is hard to find, but I have found enough different sources on it to be convinced we will see some aspect of it.  First we have to have the crisis, then we need the big government solution.

The crisis is simple.  Unions do not have enough money to pay their pensions and taxpayers are running out of money to give to the government to fund those pensions.  Whatever shall we do? 

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal reported that:

“The 1.6 million-member AFSCME is spending a total of $87.5 million on the elections after tapping into a $16 million emergency account to help fortify the Democrats’ hold on Congress. Last week, AFSCME dug deeper, taking out a $2 million loan to fund its push. The group is spending money on television advertisements, phone calls, campaign mailings and other political efforts, helped by a Supreme Court decision that loosened restrictions on campaign spending.”

Meanwhile, on October 8, Human Events reported:

“Democrats in the Senate on Thursday held a recess hearing covering a taxpayer bailout of union pensions and a plan to seize private 401(k) plans to more “fairly” distribute taxpayer-funded pensions to everyone.”

This is part of the testimony of Rose Eisenbrey, Vice President of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on October 7 of this year:

“EPI has published and advocated what we feel would be an excellent national supplemental retirement plan, the Guaranteed Retirement Account, which was authored by Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci, Director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis at the New School for Social Research. In a nutshell, the GRA would mandate employer and employee contributions to a federally administered cash balance plan. The combined 5% of payroll contributions would be invested by a Thrift Savings Plan-like entity in the bond and stock markets, with a guaranteed minimum return of 3% beyond inflation. A $600 tax credit would cover the entire 2.5% contribution for workers earning $24,000 or less, and greatly reduce the effective contribution rate for other lower-paid workers. We calculate that at the end of a normal working life, the average worker would accumulate, along with Social Security, enough to assure a 70%replacement rate of pre-retirement income.”

Doesn’t this sound a lot like Social Security (which is now in serious financial trouble)?  Don’t we learn from our mistakes?

How much of the $87.5 of union money that is funding Democrats could have been used to fund their pensions?  Right now the bailout of union pension funds is scheduled for the lame-duck session of Congress after the election.  If the Republicans do not make significant gains in the Congressional elections next month, we could see more of the same after January.

I am not opposed to taking care of people in their retirement.  Not everyone is able to have a substantial 401k plan.  However, the government has handled Social Security so badly (Congress opted out of Social Security in the 1960’s and has been spending the money on other things ever since!), why in the world should we let them take more of our money and do it again?  Both parties have robbed Social Security, but only one party is after our 401k money!

Please remember this when you vote in November.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about the coming cost of Obamacare.  The article reports:

“In passing ObamaCare, Democrats argued that it would provide a net relief to the budget deficit in its balance of new taxes and fees, drastic cuts to Medicare Advantage, and the subsidies it would provide to Americans making $88,000 a year or less.  A new study commissioned by Families USA, a group that supports ObamaCare, shows that the Democrats and the CBO badly miscalculated the level of subsidies provided.  In the first year (2014), 28 million Americans would have eligibility for more than $110 billion, outstripping the Congressional/CBO estimate by almost 600%.”

Just the fact that someone making $88,000 a year would receive a subsidy is mind blowing to me!   The article goes on to explain that the $88,000 income limit applies to a family of four.  This is a glaring illustration of the universal truth that ‘one size never fits all.’  There are some states in America where a family of four making $88,000 is living very well.  There are other states in America where that income for four people would barely put food on the table.  Healthcare (and most other things) need to be left up to the states.  The federal government cannot pass programs that accurately meet the needs of every person in every state.

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

“The deficit projection given by Democrats was apparently based on 75% failure rates to get people into the system; their advocates are busy touting the massive amounts of subsidies in the program that will tip ObamaCare into a deficit exploder in Year 2.  Either way this goes, it’s a massive failure.”

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted a story yesterday about some rather odd things going on in Jerusalem.  

According to the article:

“…the Muslim Waqf (a religious endowment in Islamic law that oversees land for Muslim religious or charitable purposes) has asked a court to force the city of Jerusalem to stop removing false graves from an ancient Muslim cemetery near the center of the city.”  

Yes, that did say false graves.

According to an Israel National News report yesterday:

“Following Arutz7’s report, the Jerusalem Municipality and the Israel Lands Authority began removing the tombs. It was speculated that the false graves were part of a plan to have the Muslim Waqf submit a demand for the additional land to be placed under Muslim ownership.

“Later it was reported that the same phenomenon was occurring in the area of the Eastern Wall in Jerusalem (adjacent to the Western Wall), with the Arabs simply ignoring a law that deems the area a national park.”

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, yet a building moratorium in part of Jerusalem was made to be part of the peace process.  Meanwhile, the Arabs are building bogus graves inside the Israeli capital in order to increase their land.

Not really.  Yesterday Jeff Jacoby posted an article at the Boston Globe about recent statements made by Congressman Barney Frank about his role in the mortgage lending crisis.  

The article reports:

“Frank faces a spirited challenge from Republican Sean Bielat, a 35-year-old businessman and Marine Corps reservist. Bielat has turned Frank’s longtime support for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the “government sponsored entities” that aggressively enabled the subprime mortgage lending at the heart of the financial meltdown, into the major issue of the race. During a debate last week, Bielat charged: “By pushing for homeownership, even among those who couldn’t afford the homes, Barney Frank put this country on a perilous footing.””

The YouTube video “Burning Down The House” is a video tour of Congressional statements regarding lending, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and regulation of the mortgage market.  It shows the roots and growth of the problem with statements by the Congressmen involved.  I strongly recommend watching it.

The Democrat talking point about the mortgage crisis is that it was caused by “Wall Street Greed.”  Wall Street greed may have played a small part in it, but logically, the problem began when banks were forced to lend money to people who could not afford their mortgages.  Had gas prices remained stable (domestic drilling allowed?), many homeowners could probably have squeaked by, but when gasoline prices neared $4 at the end of 2008, family budgets could no longer deal with the increase. 

Mr. Jacoby reports:

“As far back as 1991, the Globe reported that Frank lobbied Fannie Mae to ease its rules restricting mortgages on two- and three-family homes, even though the default rate on those mortgages was far higher than the rate for single-family dwellings. Was that being a “consistent critic” of low-income home ownership? How about when he gave a speech in 2005 praising the “advocacy groups that work with us so that we can make homeownership available to people who might not on their own in a market situation be able to afford it”?”

There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to become homeowners.  It is admirable to want to help people acquire assets.  However, to encourage people who cannot afford houses to borrow the money to buy them is irresponsible. 

It’s time for a changing of the guard in Congress.  I am hoping that the election of Sean Bielat will be part of that change.

The Hill reported yesterday that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday evening that that she has “every anticipation” she’ll remain in that position come next year.”

This announcement comes as many Democrats running for re-election are stating that they will not support her if she runs for speaker again. 

ABC News reported Tuesday:

“”From what we’re hearing, she’s probably not going to run for speaker again,” Rep. Mike McIntyre, D-NC, told ABC affiliate WWAY in North Carolina. “And if she does, I’m confident she’s going to have opposition, and I look forward to supporting that opposition. We want to have a more moderate type of alternative for leadership, and I’m confident we’re gonna have that alternative. You know, when she had opposition before, I voted for her opposition, not for her. And we’re expecting her to have opposition this time.””

It says something about Ms. Pelosi that Democrats running for office are running against her rather than supporting her.  When I read this story, I wondered if it was simply a desperate attempt by the Congressman to get votes by distancing himself from Ms. Pelosi.  I still wonder.

This is going to be a very interesting election. 

Yesterday, Big Journalism reported that National Public Radio (NPR) had terminated its contract with Juan Williams.  Juan Williams is a new analyst who frequently appears on Fox News Shows such as Special Report and Fox News Sunday.  He recently made an appearance on the Bill O’Reilly Show and commented on the worldwide threat of Islamic terrorism.

According to the article:

“NPR said in its statement that the remarks “were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR.””

The conversation on the O’Reilly show was as follows:

“… On the show, the host, Bill O’Reilly, asked him to respond to the notion that the United States was facing a “Muslim dilemma.” Mr. O’Reilly said, “The cold truth is that in the world today jihad, aided and abetted by some Muslim nations, is the biggest threat on the planet.”

“Mr. Williams said he concurred with Mr. O’Reilly.

“He continued: “I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”

“Mr. Williams also made reference to the Pakistani immigrant who pleaded guilty this month to trying to plant a car bomb in Times Square. “He said the war with Muslims, America’s war is just beginning, first drop of blood. I don’t think there’s any way to get away from these facts,” Mr. Williams said.”

If an American newsman can be fired from a taxpayer-funded radio and television station for speaking honestly about Islamic terrorism, is it any wonder that moderate Muslims are afraid to speak out?  I probably disagree with at least ninety percent of everything Juan Williams has ever said on Special Report, but I respect him as a thinking man who is honest about what he thinks.  It is totally ridiculous that NPR fired him for being honest about something they refuse to see.

Haaretz.com is reporting that Google Earth satellite photos from March 22 show extensive construction at several military bases throughout Syria, including at one of the country’s three largest missile bases, located 25 kilometers northeast of Damascus, near the city of Adra. 

According to the article:

“The photos show five 11-meter-long missiles (the length of both the Scud B and the Scud C ) at the Adra base. Three are on trucks in a parking lot. Two others are in a training area where 20 to 25 people can be made out along with about 20 vehicles. One of the two missiles appears to be mounted on a mobile launcher; another is on the ground.”

Thank God they didn’t have Google Earth up and running during the first Gulf War! 

Needless to say, this does not help the prospects for peace in the Middle East.  After the Oslo accord was signed in September 1993, terrorism against Israel by Palestinians increased greatly.  More Israelis were killed by Palestinian terrorists in the five years after the agreement was signed in 1993 than in the fifteen preceding years.  It sounds as if the terrorists are getting ready for a repeat performance.

It is amazing to me that this information could be obtained by anyone with a computer.  This is not the result of the efforts of some great ‘super spy’; it is the result of the internet age.  It will be interesting to see if any of this story appears in American newspapers or, if it does, how the American press handles it.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about a woman in Dallas County, Texas, who had been denied the right to vote on Monday.  The woman was wearing a button that showed the Gadsden flag (the rattlesnake under the words “Don’t Tread on Me”)–the flag that is unofficially associated with the Tea Party. 

The article reported:

“Katrina Pierson, who sits on the steering committee of the Dallas Tea Party and is also involved with the Garland Tea Party, told The Daily Caller that “around 11 o’clock yesterday,” a Garland Tea Party member, reported that she was told by an election official that she could not vote unless she removed her button.  A second election official, Pierson said, did not recognize the button and did not understand why the other official was not permitting the woman to vote.

“According to Pierson, the woman refused to remove her button, saying it was a violation of her first amendment rights, and called the sheriff’s office.  The sheriff passed the matter on to the Dallas County Election Department, which failed to act.”

I have very mixed emotions about this.  I oppose electioneering at the polls–I suspect most Americans do, but I am not quite sure that this qualifies as electioneering.  The Gadsden flag is not the official symbol of the Tea Party–the Tea Party does not have an official symbol.  If I walked into a polling place with a Tea Bag clipped to my lapel, would I be allowed to vote if I refused to remove it?  What about a Confederate flag on my lapel?  What about an American flag on my lapel?  What about a small picture of Barack Obama, President Bush, Sarah Palin, etc.?  The clue to me is that the second official had no idea what the significance of the flag was. 

Personally, I would have removed the button, voted, left and put the button back on, but I am not sure that that is the right answer.  One of the problems we have right now is that as Americans we are not standing up for our Constitutional rights.  Since the flag is not an official emblem and thus not part of electioneering, I think the woman was probably right to claim her right to wear the button at the polls.

Armstrong Williams has posted an article at Townhall.com detailing the hidden costs of Obamacare that are already impacting Americans. 

The article reports:

“Contrary to the president’s assurance, unfortunately, the health care reform legislation is already causing a substantial increase in medical insurance premiums. We are also finding expensive provisions in this act that we did not know were there, including a hidden 3.8 percent sales tax on the sale of certain residential real estate and a burdensome Internal Revenue Service filing requirement on small business.”

I don’t think anyone who supported the passage of the bill was aware of the real estate taxes included–we don’t think of real estate taxes as part of healthcare reform.  Mr. Williams reports that based on anecdotal evidence from business owners, insurance brokers and the media, insurance premiums on policies renewed for 2010 and 2011 are increasing 20 percent to 40 percent.  There are very obvious reasons for the increases.  Insurance companies need to make a profit in order to stay in business.  According to Carpe Diem, the website of Professor Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance in the School of Management at the Flint campus of the University of Michigan, the current profit margin for health insurance companies is 3.3%.  This profit margin ranks 86th on the “Profit Margin by Industries Chart.”  That does not represent excessive profit.  The cost of doing business for health insurance companies will be greatly increased by Obamacare–it costs more to insure children up to age 26, it costs more to provide free or low cost preventive care, it costs more to insure people with pre-existing conditions, it costs more to end the limits on lifetime medical insurance claims.  If you want a policy that includes these things, you are going to pay more for it.  If you want a policy that covers you in case of illness or emergency, it would be much cheaper.  Unfortunately, under Obamacare you are not allowed to purchase such a policy.  One size fits all.  Only it doesn’t. 

About that real estate tax, Mr. Williams points out:

“If middle-class Americans think they will escape this (real estate) tax, think again. At some point in the near future, inflation from the Federal Reserve printing money to finance the president’s huge budget deficits will drive up the nominal price of housing. Even modest three-bedroom homes will sell for big nominal dollars. At that point the middle class will be ensnared with the tax. Look at history. The income tax was originally sold to the American people as only taxing the top 2 percent!

“Pelosi may have unintentionally taught Congress and the American people a lesson. Read a bill and understand the impact of the bill before you pass it. It is unlikely that the Democrat-controlled Congress wanted to pass a medical reform bill that kills jobs and impedes the country from recovering from the Great Recession. Unfortunately, in its haste to control 20 percent of the economy represented by health care, it has passed a “Jobs Reduction Act.””

If you would like to see this monstrosity of a bill repealed before it can do any permanent damage, vote for Republicans this November.  Even if some Republicans have not sworn to repeal the bill, if we elect enough Republicans who have sworn to repeal the bill, we can defund it and get rid of it.

Harry S. Truman once said, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”   That should be the slogan for the Tea Party.  Michael Barone posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday detailing the rise of some of the Tea Party candidates.  He lists a few of these candidates, such as Sherron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Ilario Pantano, and Chip Cravaack.  Some of these candidates are running as Tea Party choices and some of them are simply Tea-Party-type candidates.  It is interesting to note that many of them have been characterized by the media (and the old-guard Republicans) as extremists.  Yet, where there have been debates, these candidates have expressed ideas that a majority of Americans agree with.  The problem with the Tea Party candidates is that the usual political operatives who work to make political campaigns successful cannot claim any credit for the success of the Tea Party candidates.  Therefore, you could say that any successful Tea Party candidate is a serious threat to the status quo on many levels–not only in a legislative sense, but in a campaign structure sense also.  There are a lot of people who may have a hard time finding jobs running political campaigns if the Tea Party candidates are successful.

I have been to a few Tea Party events over the past year or so.  They were family-oriented events with a strong message–lower taxes, smaller government, less government intrusion on business. If the Tea Party is successful in putting a number of Tea-Party-type candidates in office next month, I, as a voter, expect to see some changes in the Republican leadership in Congress.  I am not sure whether this will involve a personnel change or not, but I expect business as usual for the past ten years to change.  I want earmarks to end, I want spending cut, I want ideas for helping trim down the size of government to be taken seriously and implemented.  I want our taxes to remain the same (if the Bush tax cuts have not been extended by the time the new Congress is sworn in, I want them extended the day the new Congress is sworn in).  I want to see Republicans with backbones!

We need to understand that as of right now we have a sword of Damocles over our head in the form of tax increases that will be voted on and tax increases that will happen automatically.  In a previous article (rightwinggranny.com) posted on October 3, I listed what will happen to everyone’s taxes on January 1st if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire.  Extending the Bush tax cuts does not cut anyone’s taxes, it simply allows the taxes to remain where they are today.  If nothing is done to extend the Bush tax cuts, every American will receive a tax increase, and among other things, the marriage penalty will be back and the deduction per child will decrease.  Those two changes alone will raise the taxes for a large percentage of American families.  Those increases will happen automatically if the Bush tax cuts are not extended.  The deficit commission established by President Obama is not scheduled to report its results until December–a month after the election.  Already there are rumors that the commission will propose a VAT (Value Added Tax).  While that may not happen, it is a pretty safe bet (based on the make-up of the commission) that tax increases will be proposed and spending cuts kept at a minimum.

The Tea Party candidates are doing well because they represent a threat to the status quo.  It is time that the status quo was not only threatened but ended.  That is what I will vote for!

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been part of Marty Lamb’s campaign for Congress since March.  I have never been involved in a political campaign before, and it has been an interesting experience.  I volunteered for Marty’s campaign after hearing him interviewed on the Jay Severin show.  I liked what I heard.  I later realized that before I retired, I had done business with his company and had a positive experience with them.  That confirmed that I was in the right place.

One of the things that I have appreciated in Marty’s campaign is the creative ways he gets his message across.  The ‘sick of Congress’ barf bags and the blue pig labeled ‘no pork’ that is traveling around the district are two examples of that.  Well, Marty has again come up with a unique (and I think better) way to get his message out.  In a press conference yesterday in Attleboro, the Marty Lamb campaign released the following statement:

Today, Marty Lamb, the Republican nominee for Congress in MassachusettsThird District, announced that he will begin airing a 30 minute interview discussing the important issues confronting our nation, state and communities. Voters need more substance than a thirty second sound bite. In order to give voters a clear picture of who I am and how I will fight for them in Washington, I will be airing a 30 minute interview. This is serious season,” said Lamb. “I want voters to know that I have a plan for reviving the economy, reforming the Congress and making health care more affordable.”

Voters can tune into Charter TV3 (check your cable schedule) or watch the video on Comcast on Demand anytime by going to channel 888 and selecting my government, then my politics, then US House, and finally Marty Lamb MA 3.  The video is also available on YouTube.  For more information about Marty Lamb, you can visit his website at MartyforCongress.com.

One of the things I have appreciated about Marty Lamb as a candidate is that he is not afraid to say where he stands on issues.  This interview video is an example of that.  We need more candidates who will tell us in advance exactly what they plan to do.

I read recently that the Political Action Committee (PAC) associated with the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) had endorsed Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid.  I thought that was rather odd.  I even went as far as to suggest to my husband that he not join or support the organization.  Well, I guess I wasn’t the only person who had a problem with the endorsement.

Yesterdau’s Wall Street Journal reported that as of last Friday, VFW Commander-in-Chief Richard Eubank has removed all eleven board directors of the group’s PAC.  Many veterans had complained that the people the board had endorsed this year were anti-military, and the board directors had refused to rescind this year’s congressional endorsements.

The article also reported:

“In a memo Thursday, Mr. Eubank said he would also move to dissolve the PAC altogether at the group’s annual convention next August, saying that “the recent endorsement decisions have, in fact, harmed the VFW’s reputation and future ability to fulfill our mission.””

I can’t help but remember Harry Reid’s statement in 2007 when the surge was being debated in Congress.  Aside from the impact it must have had on the military, the statement in essence calls our national leaders liars.  That is not the sort of man the VFW should be endorsing.  Here is the quote via MSNBC News on April 20, 2007.

“I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and – you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows – (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday,” said Reid, D-Nev.

That statement from a sitting congressman is a disgrace.  The statement alone shows a total lack of respect for the soldiers serving in Iraq.  There is no way the VFW should endorse Senator Reid.

The Houston Chronicle reported yesterday that many of the court cases in Houston involving illegal immigrants are being dismissed.

The article reports:

“In the month after Homeland Security officials started a review of Houston’s immigration court docket, immigration judges dismissed more than 200 cases, an increase of more than 700 percent from the prior month, new data shows.”

The dismissals mean that the officials are no longer trying to deport illegals through the court system, but the dismissals do not give the illegal immigrants legal status either.  Therefore, the illegal aliens remain here, but technically they are not allowed to work.  It sends a very mixed message to the illegal alien community–we aren’t going to deport you, but we won’t let you legally work.  This is not a workable system.

The Wall Street Journal today told a different story.  They reported that:

“In the past two weeks, Texas became the first border state to fully deploy the Department of Homeland Security program, which is scheduled to be rolled out to all U.S. counties by 2013. The program automatically routes prisoners’ fingerprints to the department, which tries to determine whether they are allowed to be in the U.S.”

“Known as Secure Communities, the program is designed to intercept and remove illegal immigrants who have committed serious crimes such as homicide, rape and kidnapping, immigration officials say.”

The argument against the program is that it also targets illegals with no criminal record.  At the risk of stating the obvious, isn’t being illegal illegal?  Isn’t entering the country illegally breaking the law?   I guess I am missing something here.

Finally, CNSNews reports:

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) warned Arizona law enforcement officials in May that Mexican drug cartels were deploying assassins to kill bandits highjacking their drug loads in the Vekol Valley, 70 miles inside Arizona. Then the federal government set up signs in the region to warn American citizens away from this area of U.S. sovereign territory.”  

Thanks for the help, guys.  I think maybe the federal government should just start supporting Arizona’s border enforcement in any way they can.  This is ridiculous.  This is American land 70 miles away from the border.  Would you put up with the government turning part of your state over to violent criminals?  We need to secure the border to protect innocent Americans.  That is not racist, it is just fact. 

Today’s above-the-fold story in my local paper (the Attleboro Sun Chronicle) is entitled, “Selling the sales tax cut.”  Included in the article is the story of Robert Gaudette, owner of Bridal and Gift, a bridal shop on Route 1 in South Attleboro.  Mr. Guadette points out that because the sales tax in Massachusetts is 6.25 percent, many brides-to-be come into his store, pick out their gowns, then go to Rhode Island to buy them (clothing is exempt from the sales tax in Rhode Island).  The savings on a $15,000 dress is $937.00.  This is an example of how taxes directly impact businesses.  Not only is Mr. Gaudette losing business, the state loses the revenue from the sales tax because he has lost the sale (due to tax policy).  Since Mr. Gaudette is losing sales to Rhode Island, he may not be able to hire another person for his business,–the volume of business does not warrant it.  If you want to see businesses in Massachusetts grow, support the rollback of the Massachusetts sales tax.  This may force layoffs in the public sector, but those job losses will be more than made up for by gains in the private sector.  The question we need to ask ourselves is, “Do we want a smaller state government and a larger private sector or a smaller private sector and a larger state government?”

The Laffer Curve (see Heritage.org) is a graph that shows that when taxes are cut, economic activity increases, and revenues go up.  Ryan Dwyer at the Washington Times posted an article in February of this year showing how the Bush tax cuts increased government revenue–they did not cause the deficit–increased spending caused the deficit. 

Mr. Dwyer points out in his article:

“By 2003, Mr. Bush grasped this lesson. In that year, he cut the dividend and capital gains rates to 15 percent each, and the economy responded. In two years, stocks rose 20 percent. In three years, $15 trillion of new wealth was created. The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms.”

He also explains:

“But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts. And (bonus) the rich paid an even higher percentage of the total tax burden than they had at any time in at least the previous 40 years. This was news to the New York Times, whose astonished editorial board could only describe the gains as a “surprise windfall.””

Another thing to keep in mind is the Democrat talking point that we cannot afford to extend the Bush tax cuts.  We can’t “give tax cuts to the rich.”  Something needs to be explained (and shouted) here–we are not giving tax cuts to anyone–WE ARE SIMPLY NOT INCREASING ANYONE’S TAXES–IF WE EXTEND THE BUSH TAX CUTS WE ARE SIMPLY KEEPING TAX RATES WHERE THEY ARE–WE ARE NOT CUTTING ANYONE’S TAXES!!!!!

One of the reason the economy is not growing is that businesses are reluctant to hire in a climate of uncertainty.  Because Congress has not yet passed a budget for next year, has not indicated whether it will extend the current tax rates, and really has not given businesses any idea of how their costs will change because of Obamacare, businesses are reluctant to spend the money to hire and train new employees.  If you want to see the economy grow, leave the tax rates where they are, repeal Obamacare, and get the government out of the private sector.

Yes, you read that headline right.  Scott Johnson at Power Line reported yesterday on a lawsuit that is pending in a federal court in Minnesota.  The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenging the fact that Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) K-8 public charter school in suburban St. Paul operates on public funds. 

The article reports:

“Discussing the lawsuit, ACLU Minnesota executive director Chuck Samuelson observed: “The issue with TiZA, frankly, was the incredible commingling of church and state. It’s a theocratic school. It is as plain as the substantial nose on my face.” As a result of Samuelson’s statement of the ACLU Minnesota’s position in the lawsuit, TiZA alleged that Samuelson and the ACLU had defamed it, asserting several counterclaims against the ACLU Minnesota for amounts in excess of $100,000 (i.e., an unlimited amount).”

The article reports on the results of the defamation suit:

“As to the merits of TiZA’s defamation and defamation-related claims, Judge Frank held that “the allegedly defamatory statements all reflect Plaintiff’s belief [that TiZA is illegally operating as a religious school] and TiZA has alleged no facts that would demonstrate that Plaintiff entertains any doubts as to the truth of its statements.” TiZA therefore had “wholly failed” to allege facts making out the actual malice constitutionally required to support a claim of defamation by a public official or, Judge Frank held, a public school.

“In asserting its defamation and defamation-related counterclaims against Samuelson and the ACLU Minnesota, TiZA was taking a leaf from the old Islamist playbook written by CAIR. The irony in this case is that TiZA pretends to be a nonsectarian institution; it is this pretense that goes to the heart of the pending lawsuit.”

It was also noted in the article that TIZA has attempted to prevent witnesses from testifying or otherwise disclosing information relevant to the issues in the lawsuit.

The article concludes:

“(Katherine) Kersten quotes the Dorsey firm’s assessment of the evidence uncovered in the case so far in a letter filed with the court on a discovery-related issue: “The ACLU believes Mr. Zaman’s testimony relating to control of virtually every significant event at TiZA, MAS-MN, MET and MET’s subsidiaries, coupled with his efforts to hide such control, constitute powerful evidence against TiZA’s denials that it is a Muslim school and that it funnels state and federal money to other Muslim organizations.” Now Islamic organizational allies of TiZA, incidentally, are seeking to have the law firm representing the ACLU Minnesota removed from the lawsuit.

“Kersten concludes: “Every time we read about this lawsuit, we have to pinch ourselves and say: We’re talking about a public, taxpayer-funded school.” The pending lawsuit is important, and not just for the result to which it might give rise when it is concluded. Along the way it is producing revelations that deserve attention regardless of the result.”

I very rarely agree with the ACLU, but in this case they are right.  If Islam is to be accepted in America as a religion, it needs to abide by the same rules that other religions in America have to follow.  In my own mind, I wonder if Islam wants to be accepted as a religion equal to others in this country or if they are seeking special privileges.

There were a number of articles about Obamacare on the Internet this week.  Rather than do a separate article here for each one, I will try to highlight some of them so that you can decide which one you want to read.  I apologize in advance for what may be a rather long article!

Politico reported this week that U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson allowed two major aspects of the lawsuit against Obamacare to proceed:  the states’ challenge to the requirement that all Americans must buy health insurance and the required expansion of the Medicaid program.

Judge Vinson criticized the Democrats for making an “Alice in Wonderland” argument to defend the law.  If you remember, during the debates regarding the law, President Obama said that forcing the public to buy health insurance was not a tax–it was simply a mandate.  The Justice Department is defending the law saying that it is a tax and Congress has the right to levy taxes. 

The case will go to trial on December 16.  The lawsuit, brought by 20 state attorneys general and governors, is expected to end up before the U. S. Supreme Court.

Reuters also posted an article on the Florida decision.  The Reuters article states:

“”This decision is a recognition that Congress has never gone this far and that the constitutional arguments have real merit,” Utah Republican Senator Orrin Hatch said.

“The challenge being heard by Vinson is one of many against the healthcare law. There is a hearing in Virginia Monday on the merits of a separate suit against the healthcare overhaul.”

It will be interesting to watch the progress of this case.

Meanwhile, your tax dollars are at work.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports that the Department of Health and Human Services has launched a $3 million television ad campaign to discuss the benefits of Obamacare.

According to Hot Air:

“The Department of Health and Human Services insists that the ads are not political and that the spending is in line with what the agency has done in the past to advise seniors about the open enrollment period for Medicare Advantage and prescription drug coverage plans, which begins Nov. 15. But the ads discuss benefits specific to the Democrats’ health care reform law, such as the closing of the prescription drug “doughnut hole,” the 50 percent discount on drugs purchased in the coverage gap and the new coverage for an annual wellness visit, Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services spokesman Tony Salters said.”

The fact that these ads are running before the election rather than just before the open enrollment period has fueled the idea that the ads are political.  Your tax money is at work!

Connecticut.com reports that the state has given Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield the go ahead to raise premiums by as much as 47 percent for some members, and says health care reform is the reason why. This is an amazing statement when you consider Kathleen Sebelius stated that she would not allow insurance companies to blame any rate increases on the new law.  According to an article I did in September at rightwinggranny.com:

(In a letter  to the insurance lobby,) “she warned that bad actors may be excluded from new health insurance markets that will open in 2014 under the law. They’d lose out on a big pool of customers, as many as 30 million people nationwide.”

I wonder what she is going to do to a state that tells the truth!

Scott Johnson posted an article at Power Line yesterday that provides some food for thought on the unintended consequences of Obamacare. 

The article quotes Robert Goldberg, the vice president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest:

“Private-sector innovators from around the world contributed their expertise to the rescue effort in Chile, and the result was nothing short of miraculous. Yet when it comes to rescuing our health care system, President Obama and his allies are hellbent on limiting — if not eliminating — the role of private-sector innovation. America’s leaders should take note of Chile’s example — and reverse their cynical, government-heavy course.”

The rescue of the miners was amazing, but I hadn’t really stopped to think about all the different pieces that went into it. 

The article points out:

“Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger observed: “If those miners had been trapped a half-mile down like this 25 years ago anywhere on earth, they would be dead. What happened over the past 25 years that meant the difference between life and death for those men?””

He then examines what happened to make the rescue possible. 

The article quotes Matt Ridley’s book The Rational Optimist:

“Ultimately, societies thrive when innovation occurs without much interference and where governments are not seeking to centralize and manage the exchange of ideas and resources according to some master plan. The $20 million spent to rescue the miners will generate greater wealth and longer life for thousands and millions of people in the years ahead. The rescue is a model of how people around the planet can solve problems and improve life if left to their own devices.”

The bottom line here is very simple.  Making a profit is a powerful incentive.  If a person can find a way to do something more efficiently and make money at it, he will pursue it.  If there is not a financial incentive, he may find other things to take up his time.

The article concludes:

“Isaiah Berlin wrote: “Disregard for the preferences and interests of individuals today in order to pursue some distant social goal that their rules have claimed is their duty to promote has been a common cause of misery for people throughout the ages.”

“The rescue of the Chilean miners was the product of leadership encouraging collective intelligence and innovation on a global scale. In America, an elite is using government to consolidate its ability to impose its grand vision about health care on the nation. Who will rescue us from this fate?”

We have a chance in November to change direction.  Hopefully we will.  President Obama keeps saying that “D” puts the car in drive.  It is not wise to put the car in drive when you are heading over a cliff–at that point “R” for reverse makes more sense.

We won’t know until November 3rd which party will control Congress, but it is interesting to follow some of the incumbents who voted for unpopular legislation struggle to maintain their seats.  Congressman Jim Oberstar, a Democrat from Minnesota’s 8th Congressional District is running for re-election (as is all of the House of Representatives). 

On Thursday, the Washington Examiner reported:

“First an internal GOP poll showed Republican Chip Cravaack, a former Navy and Northwest Airlines pilot, trailing Oberstar by just three points–42% to 45%.  Then came a couple of surprising anecdotes:  the AP reported a local union nearly endorsed Cravaack, and there was such interest in the campaign that the debate–schedules at 8 a.m. on a Tuesday–had to be moved to a larger venue.”

Just when you thought things could not get worse for Congressman Oberstar, it was reported that between June 22 and September 30, the Congressman received only one campaign donation from his district.  Congressman Oberstar collected $233,102 in contributions during that period–from political action committees, Native American tribes or individual donors in other districts and states. 

His story is not unique.  One of the results of an ‘internet society’ is that the money in elections is now national as well as local.  I don’t know if this is a good thing or not, but it has definitely changed how campaign money is raised.  In the past, a candidate who received only one donation from his district might have a hard time getting his message out.  Today, when significant money can be donated from outside the district, that is not a problem.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article yesterday about some behind-the-scenes maneuvering at the United Nations.  Canada’s support of Israel has cost Canada a seat on the United Nations Security Council. 

According to the article:

“Canada lost out to Portugal after Portugal’s natural ally, Brazil, lobbied Islamic countries with warnings that Canada’s vote on Israel-related issues would be no different than that of the United States. Portugal, the argument went, would be more “balanced.””

“…As for Portugal, Israeli diplomats view it as among those EU nations that all too often goes with the anti-Israel flow. In addition to the Arab and Muslim states, Portugal had the backing fo Cuba and Venezuela.”

The United States has not been a reliable vote for Israel in the United Nations Security Council for most of the past two years.  Gradually, Israel’s enemies are increasing their influence in the United Nations.  South Africa, another nation that generally votes against Israel, has also joined the Security Council.

This is very interesting in view of the fact that the United Nations may establish a Palestinian State in the very near future without any positive progress in the peace talks (see article written earlier today at rightwinggranny).

I have said it before–the best thing to do with the United Nations is kick them out of New York and resign our membership.  What began as an idealistic quest for freedom and peace has turned into an organization that has been responsible for atrocities done by its own peacekeepers.  The United Nations is supported largely by United States taxpayer money.  It’s time the American taxpayers stopped supporting this organization.

Congressmen (and women) who currently hold office have (until recently) had an advantage over their opponents.  They had name recognition, could get free publicity by attending ribbon cuttings, community events, and other things to increase their positive exposure to the public.  They also had the advantage, generally if they leaned toward the political left, of having the media on their side.  Some of that has changed with this election, some has not.

My local paper, The Sun Chronicle placed an article entitled, “Taking aim at Mass. pols.”  The article deals with the fact that a Political Action Committee (PAC) is giving $200,000 of their money to Sean Beilat and Marty Lamb.  Of course, that is not the way the article frames it. 

The article states:

“A conservative Nevada group is targeting U.S. Reps. James McGovern and Barney Frank for defeat, pledging to pour $200,000 into an ad campaign against them in the waning days of the general election.

“Western Representation PAC intends to spend $500,000 on a handful of races nationwide this election cycle, and said McGovern and Frank are on their hit list for 40 percent of it.”

The article somehow neglects to mention some of the facts regarding Congressman McGovern’s campaign contributions.  Open Secrets reports that Congressman McGovern has received $420,625 in PAC contributions (they do not list where they are from).  There is a footnote under the numbers: (NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 2009 – 2010 House election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data available electronically on Friday, October 15, 2010).

The article in the Sun Chronicle makes it sound like a horrible thing that the Western Representation PAC is supporting Marty Lamb and Sean Bielat.  I am grateful for their help in both campaigns.  Barney Frank was a major factor in the collapse of the housing market.  James McGovern was a major factor in the snarky way that the healthcare reform bill was passed. 

Congress will be a better place if both of these men are voted out of office.

Let me make one thing clear–I am not opposed to the idea of a Palestinian state.  I will strongly support a Palestinian state as soon as the leaders of the future Palestinian state strongly support an Israeli state.  I see no indication that a future Palestinian state would be willing to play nicely with its neighbor Israel.  In 2008, Israel built a playground that includes a tunnel for a quick escape from Kassam rocket barrages in Sderot because of the danger to children playing there.  Until Gaza elects a government that is not firing rockets at defenseless children, I am not interested in making them a state.

However, there is a move afoot that ignores the behavior of those in charge of Gaza.  According to Breitbart.com (on October 10), France will not rule out the option of the UN Security Council creating a Palestinian state. 

According to the article:

“(French Foreign Minister Bernard) Kouchner told the Palestinian newspaper Al-Ayyam that France preferred a two-state solution to be negotiated with Israel, but said appealing to the Security Council to resolve the conflict remained a possibility.

“We want to be able to soon welcome the state of Palestine to the United Nations.  This is the hope and the desire of the international community, and the sooner that can happen the better,” he said.”

The Organization of Islamic Countries is a 57-nation organization of Muslim states that has a permanent delegation to the United Nations,  I have no doubt that they would attempt to push Palestinian statehood through the United Nations if they thought they had the votes.  However, as all this develops, I am reminded of a quote from Walid Shoebat (a former terrorist).  He stated, “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”   There was never a move for a Palestinian state until after the 1967 war in the Middle East.  I strongly suspect that if the Arabs had been able to hold the land they lost, there would never have been a cry for a Palestinian state.  However, this would not have stopped them from future attempts to take more land from Israel.

I see two rational options for the formation of a Palestinian state.  The first is for the people who would govern such a state to agree to accept the existence of Israel in its present form and agree to live at peace with Israel.  (Right after pigs fly)  The second is for one or all of the Arab countries in the Middle East to set aside some of their land for the Palestinians.  (Also right after pigs fly).

It is ironic that the country in the Middle East where Palestinians have the most opportunity and are treated the most fairly is Israel.  If the Palestinian people were really smart, they would simply declare their land an extension of Israel and choose to live under the Israeli government.  That way they would have a chance at jobs, financial stability, and have a hope of some sort of infrastructure being built to sustain their community.  That will also happen right after pigs fly. 

This year has been the year of the creative campaign.  The influence and emergence of the Tea Party Express and the Tea Party Patriots has injected energy and creativity into this campaign season.  In Massachusetts we have the ‘are you sick of Congress?’ barf bags and the blue pig (representing government pork) that travels with Congressional candidate Marty Lamb, and in Colorado we have a wonderful ad by Ken Buck, who is running for Senator there.

Power Line has posted a video of this ad.  The best statement in the ad:

“They heard us, and yet they ignored us,” Buck says. “And folks, on November 2 they will ignore us no more.”

Get out and vote on November 2 and make that a true statement!

Please follow this link to the Killeen Daily Herald.  The link is to an article posted yesterday about the testimony that is being heard in the Fort Hood terrorism attack.  I have nothing to add to the article; the young man’s story is moving and inspiring.

This is not an idle question.  WLS AM in Chicago is reporting that Cris Cray, Director of Legislation at the Illinois State Board of Elections, says not all of Illinois’ 110 jurisdictions were compliant with the 2009 Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE).  The act requires that ballots be sent to military forces serving overseas forty-five days before the election in order for the soldiers to have enough time to return their ballots and have them count.

Getting ballots to our military seems to be problem this year.  The article reports:

“Several New York counties including the five boroughs of New York City were found to be in violation of the deadline after the state was permitted by the Defense Department to move its deadline to Oct. 1 because the state’s primary day was four days before the deadline.

“The Justice Department settled a case with New Mexico Tuesday where six counties failed to mail ballots by the deadline.

“Overseas ballots could be a deciding factor in Illinois’ mid-term elections where recent polls show a tight U.S. Senate race between Republican Mark Kirk and Democrat Alexi Giannoulias. Republican Bill Brady has an edge over Democratic incumbent Pat Quinn for governor.”

This is another reason to vote everyone currently in office out of office.  I realize that there are some good men in Congress, but those good men need to learn how to stand up and be heard.  All military votes should be counted.  If they come in late because they were mailed late, too bad–they should still be counted.