Investors.com posted an editorial about the double standard being applied to the government-sponsored gun running operation (Operation Fast and Furious) that was going on at America’s southern border and the Iran-Contra scandal. 

The article points out:

“As if “Project Gunrunner” and “Operation Fast and Furious” weren’t bad enough, we now learn of “Operation Castaway,” run out of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Tampa field division. It’s another operation that allowed guns to “walk” south of the border, this time to Honduras, using similar techniques and tactics.”

At least Iran Contra was done with the idea of supporting freedom.  In Operation Fast and Furious, the guns have gone to the Central American MS-13 gang and to the drug cartels. 

The article points out:

“The real purpose, we have stated and still suspect, was to advance the administration’s push for gun control and the stripping of law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights through “common sense” restrictions on private gun ownership by creating chaos and fomenting violence with the guns provided.

“Indeed, it did not take long for ATF to announce a new gun-control mandate — the requirement that gun store owners in the border states of Arizona, California, Texas and New Mexico make a special ATF report for multiple long-gun sales, the same type of weapons the ATF was freely providing to the worst of the worst.”

8. Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

“…the Department of Justice is stalling on any cooperation with Rep. Darrel Issa’s House Oversight Committee. The only information ATF has provided freely has been to potential witnesses, giving them, according to BigGovernment.com, access to a shared drive on its computer system so everyone can compare notes and get their stories straight.”

President Obama called for ‘shared sacrifice’ in his weekly address yesterday.  How about shared success?  If you punish success, how in the world do you expect people to aspire to it? 

This is a quote from the speech:

“We shouldn’t put the burden of deficit reduction on the backs of folks who’ve already borne the brunt of the recession. It’s not reasonable and it’s not right. If we’re going to ask seniors, or students, or middle-class Americans to sacrifice, then we have to ask corporations and the wealthiest Americans to share in that sacrifice. We have to ask everyone to play their part. Because we are all part of the same country. We are all in this together.”

The wealthiest Americans are paying their part.  The richest 20 percent of Americans paid 68.9 percent of federal taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 28.1 percent.  There are also figures that show that about 50 percent of Americans pay no taxes at all (including General Electric–which did not break the law, but used the loopholes available).  I am not in favor of ‘raising taxes on the rich.’  I am in favor making sure everyone pays something–even if it is $100 a year.  Meanwhile–it’s the spending stupid!

The Law of the Sea Treaty (UNCLOS) is back.  On July 13, the Washington Times posted an article by Kim R. Holmes reporting that Senator John Kerry is asking the Senate to approve the treaty because it would give the United States ‘new rights and advantages.’  This is simply not true.

The treaty was first put together in 1982.  In 1994, U. S. negotiators signed an amended agreement, but it was never ratified by the Senate. 

Supporters of the treaty say that it will give the United States ‘new rights’, but the United States already has those rights under international law. 

For example, the article points out:

“Unfortunately, it does not. What “rights” it recognizes already exist in customary international law. Treaty supporters claim ratification will give the U.S. additional rights to oil, gas and minerals in the deep seabed of its extended continental shelf. But the U.S. already has clear legal title and rights to the resources of its continental shelf (even though the current administration bans drilling there).

“Similarly, the treaty’s navigational provisions offer nothing new. Yes, the U.S. Navy says UNCLOS might improve the “predictability” of these rights, but does the Navy’s access to international waters really depend upon a treaty to which we are not even a member? The last time I checked, the U.S. Navy could go anywhere it wanted in international waters.”

The treaty creates an unaccountable international bureaucracy ” to redistribute the wealth of the deep seabed and the extended continental shelf.”  This does not sound like something we need to ratify. 

The article points out:

“Were the U.S. to join, it would have to share with “developing” nations any royalty revenue generated on its continental shelf beyond the 200 nautical mile mark. The International Seabed Authority would decide just how these revenues are distributed. The U.S. by itself would have no veto over its decisions.

“Consensus often works against U.S. interests in the U.N. General Assembly, and it would do so in this international body. Imagine how a U.N.-like body with a “right” to distribute U.S. revenues would behave.”

I am not ready to go on record as saying that this is a step toward one-world government, but it does seem as if the establishment of a new international bureaucracy is not a good move for those of us seeking to preserve our country’s sovereignty.   If you look at some of the decisions made lately by the United Nations, it is frightening to even think of the U.N. creating an administrative body that will supersede the laws of the member countries.  Do you trust the organization that just named North Korea as the head of its Disarmament Conference to control the world’s wealth that comes from the sea?

On July 12, Peter Wallison posted an article at the Wall Street Journal concerning the causes of the financial meltdown that the country recently experienced.  Peter Wallison is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and was a member of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission who dissented from the majority report.

Mr. Wallison is reporting on a new book which refutes the government commission’s conclusion that the “greed on Wall Street and faulty risk management at banks and other financial firms” were responsible for the collapse of the housing market. 

Mr. Wallison reports:

“With the publication of “Reckless Endangerment,” a new book about the causes of the crisis, this story is beginning to unravel. The authors, Gretchen Morgenson, a business reporter and commentator for the New York Times, and Josh Rosner, a financial analyst, make clear that it was Fannie Mae and the government housing policies it supported, pursued and exploited that brought the financial system to a halt in 2008.”

So why is the government commission telling us a different story?   James A. Johnson, a Democratic political operative and former aide to Walter Mondale, became chairman of Fannie Mae in 1991.  At that point Fannie Mae became political–aligning itself with those in Congress who wanted to make homeownership possible for people who had not previously able to obtain mortgages.  This is a great goal, but when put in practice causes problems.

The article reports:

“”Under Johnson,” write Ms. Morgenson and Mr. Rosner, “Fannie Mae led the way in encouraging loose lending practices among banks whose loans the company bought. . . . Johnson led both the private and public sectors down a path that led directly to the financial crisis of 2008.””

The above information does not appear in the government commission’s report.  The commission also heard testimony that by 2008 half of all mortgages in the U.S. (27 million loans) were subprime or otherwise risky, and that 12 million of these loans were on the books of the GSEs.  Somehow that was overlooked in the conclusions drawn.

The article explains why the Dodd-Frank Act did not address the problem of Fannie Mae:

“The principal sponsors of that Dodd-Frank Act, former Sen. Chris Dodd and former House Financial Services Committee Chair Barney Frank, were also the principal supporters and political protectors of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the government housing policies they implemented.

“It is little wonder then that legislation named after them would place the blame for the financial crisis solely on the private sector and do nothing to reform a government-backed housing finance system that will increasingly be seen as the primary cause of the devastating events of 2008.”

To add to the problem, on July 9, I reported (rightwinggranny.com) that Eric Holder’s justice department has asked banks to relax their lending standards.  Because we did not properly address the problem the first time, we are destined to repeat our past mistake.

This article asks a question.  I do not have an answer.  I just want to show both sides of the story and provide some food for thought.

The article is based on two articles–the first from (Long Island) Newsday yesterday, and the second from CBS News on Thursday.  Both articles have to do with a voter referendum on August 1 concerning a new coliseum for Nassau County, New York.

The article at Newsday reports that Camoin Associates, a Malta, N.Y., consulting firm that advises municipalities on economic development, has given a report to Nassau County stating that if the New York Islanders Hockey team fails to renew its contract in 2015, it could cost the county 2,660 jobs and nearly $104 million in annual earnings and approximately $8 million a year in tax revenue.

The Newsday article gets to the heart of the matter:

“Nassau residents will vote Aug. 1 on whether to borrow as much as $400 million for a new hockey arena and minor league ballpark. Islanders owner Charles Wang has threatened to move the team if a new arena is not built.”

The article at CBS News states:

“The  Nassau Interim Finance Authority said Thursday that if a referendum to $400 million to renovate the Nassau Coliseum passes, it would likely result in a 3.5 to 4 percent average property tax increase.”

The article at CBS News also states:

“Desmond Ryan of the Association for a Better Long Island said there were too many unanswered questions to support the renovations.”

There are a lot of good points on both sides here.  Charles Wang originally made an offer to the county that was privately paid for, but included development in addition to the coliseum renovation.  His proposal would have impacted his cash flow in such a way that his private funding of a new coliseum or renovations was a good business move.  The county turned it down.  The question is not whether or not the coliseum needs renovation–it does.  The question is who should pay for it.  Because the county turned down private funding, their only option now seems to be public funding. 

I understand the argument that the renovation will raise taxes, and I hate to see that happen to anyone–the problem is that when taxes go up, they rarely go down.  If the referendum goes through and taxes are raised for the coliseum, what are the chances of them going down when the predicted revenues from the new coliseum are collected?  One the other hand, if the referendum is not passed and jobs and revenues are lost, wouldn’t everyone’s taxes go up to make up for the loss of revenue?

I meant what I said–I don’t know what the answer is.  I hate to see the county rather than a private businessman rebuild a coliseum.  Who owns the coliseum after the country rebuilds it?  I also hate to see people lose their jobs, the county lose the revenue, and people’s taxes go up to make up the difference.   I hope the voters of Nassau County have more insight into this situation than I do!

John Hinderaker at Power Line reported yesterday that forty Republican Senators voted to sustain a point of order brought up by Senator Jeff Sessions objecting to the Democrats being in violation of the Congressional Budget Act.  According to the Congressional Budget Act, appropriations bills cannot be passed when there is no federal budget in place.  The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009. 

The article reports:

“The implication of today’s vote is that it will be hard for the Democrats to get the necessary 60 votes for cloture on any future illegal spending measures. The federal government has now been operating contrary to law for more than two years without a budget.”

It’s time for transparency and fiscal responsibility to make an appearance in Washington.

This is going to be a rather disjointed article about two separate aspects of the budget ceiling debate.

The first link is to an article at the American Thinker about how the government actually spends its money.  The article gives examples of things that the government could skip paying in order to fund Social Security and veterans (Obama has threatened to delay those checks if the debt ceiling is not raised).  These are some of the items:

ObamaCare                                                                       $1.5 trillion

Planned Parenthood (annually)                                        $330 million

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac                                                 $145 billion

Amtrak                                                                              $1.9 billion

Unspent Stimulus/ War Chest                                           $60 billion

National Endowment for the Arts                                   $133 million

National Endowment for the Humanities                        $140 million

The Post Office                                                                 $1.0 billion

Vacant Federal Properties                                               $25.0 billion

Medicare Fraud                                                               $47.0 billion

National Broadband Coverage Map                             $350.0 million

Federal Employee Flight Upgrades                              $146.0 million

Beach Re-sanding                                                              $3.0 billion

Payments Not to Use Land (conservation)                      $2.0 billion

International Abortions/Population Control               $650.0 million

Libya Kinetic Military Action                                    $750.0 million

Consumer Protection Bureau                                      $329.0 million

United Nations                                                                $6.4 billion

NPR/Corporation for Public Broadcasting                 $451.0 million

Renewable Energy Tax Credits (mostly wind)                $6.9 billion

Tax Credits to IRS employees/Others                        $513.0 million

Federal Weatherization Programs                                    $5.0 billion

99 Week Unemployment Benefits                              $100.0 billion

Total                                                                       $1.9 – 2.0 trillion

It seems to me that there are a few things here that might be closely examined with the idea of saving money.  Anyway, these are some of the places your tax money goes.

The second part of this article has to do with telling the truth.  This is a very simple example of why all of us need to be paying attention to the current debate. 

The Hill reported today that:

“Obama said, citing “poll after poll” showing Republican voters, as well as Democrats, believe in taking “a balanced approach” — including both increased revenues and spending cuts in a plan to cut the deficit.”

Rasmussen Reports reported yesterday that:

“Just 34% think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 55% disagree and say it should not.”

At least most of the American people understand that the problem is the spending–not the lack of revenue.  It is unfortunate that the President is either not aware of that or is lying about it.

This article is based on two articles.  The first was posted at Hot Air yesterday; the second was posted at Investors.com yesterday. 

The Hot Air post concerns the testimony of Stephen Goss, the chief actuary of the Social Security Administration, during a Budget Hearing in Congress yesterday morning.  Mr. Goss was asked by Kansas Republican Representative Tim Huelskamp why Social Security checks might not go out August 3.  Representative Huelskamp pointed out that even under the debt limit the nation has enough money to cover the interest on its debt, Social Security payments, and more. 

The article reports:

“Goss confirmed the decision to send out Social Security checks (or not) would, indeed, be a Treasury Department (a.k.a. the administration’s) decision.

“”The responsibility of the Social Security Administration per se, my boss, Commissioner Astrue, is to in fact determine how much in the way of benefit payments people are supposed to receive,” Goss said. “We send that information actually over to the Department of the Treasury. They are the ones who actually send out the payments, whether it’s electronic funds, transfers, or check.””

The article at Investors.com points out that the fact that the President is threatening Social Security payments if the debt ceiling is not raised further confirms the fact that there is no Social Security fund. 

The article at Investors.com reports:

“Wait! What happened to Social Security’s “guarantee”? You know, the iron-clad assurance of Social Security benefits in exchange for paying into the program your whole working life? It’s something Democrats constantly talk about, particularly when attacking Republicans who propose privatizing the program.

“As Nancy Pelosi once put it: “Social Security has never failed to pay promised benefits, and Democrats will fight to make sure that Republicans do not turn a guaranteed benefit into a guaranteed gamble.”

“The AFL-CIO warned in 2005 about “President Bush’s plan to replace Social Security’s guaranteed benefits with risky private accounts.” The AARP describes Social Security as “the guaranteed part of your retirement plan.” Etc., etc.

“Turns out, this “guarantee” is a lie.

“In 1960, the Supreme Court ruled that workers do not have a legal right to their Social Security benefits.”

Michael W. McConnell, who was assistant general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget from 1981-1983 and is not a professor of constitutional law at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, posted an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today.

In his article Professor McConnell explains:

“But the absence of any written budgetary documents and the closed-door nature of the negotiating sessions make it impossible to tell which side is being “serious” and which side is being intransigent. Instead of specific proposals, scored by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and open to examination by press and public, we get vague generalities about “trillions” of dollars in supposed savings based on who-knows-what changes in policy.”

He cites the ‘rules’ that according to law should be governing the current discussion on the budget and the debt ceiling.  According to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which Congress enacted in 1974, the president must submit a proposed budget “on or before” the first Monday in February.  The CBO (Congressional Budget Office)  has until February 15th to score the budget.  President Obama did submit a budget–it was defeated in the Senate 97 to 0.  In April, the President made a speech proposing a new plan, but with no specifics.

The Budget Act requires the House and Senate to hold hearings on the President’s budget proposal.  By April 1, the House and Senate must adopt the President’s proposal or put forth an alternative.  By April 15, Congress must adopt a concurrent resolution embodying a congressional budget.  Appropriations bills must stay within this budget or be subject to a point of order.

The House of Representatives has passed a budget.  The Senate has not passed a budget since 2009. 

The Budget Act was designed to make the budget process transparent and prevent the neverending vague negotiations we are currently enduring.  We have no idea what the President’s suggestions are, and the only idea we have of the Republican position is from the Ryan budget, which the White House and the mainstream press have labeled unacceptable. 

It’s time to get back to following the rules and bringing the process out into the open air.  Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

ABC News posted an article today about Harvard University child expert Dr. David Ludwig’s recent statement that some parents should lose custody of their severely obese children.

The article reports:

“Ludwig, an obesity expert at Children’s Hospital Boston and associate professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, shared his divisive idea in an opinion piece that ran in the Journal of the American Medical Association Wednesday: that state intervention can serve in the best interest of extremely obese children, of which there’re about 2 million across the United States.”

I agree that childhood obesity is a problem.  However, I disagree that even the threat of taking children away from their parents is the answer.  There are a lot of factors in play here.  Some obesity may be inherited, some may be the result of poor eating habits, some may be the result of disease, some may be the result of lifestyle issues (too many video games–too little exercise), and some may be the result of some of things that are routinely injected into America’s food supply.  Taking children away from their parents addresses very few of these issues.

To me, the important part of this article is the idea that taking a child out of his/her original family because he is considered obese is even possible.  The article at ABC relates the story of a family whose child was removed from their household because of being obese.  The child was returned to the family after two months–she did no better in foster care.  The young girl was later diagnosed with a genetic predisposition.

I am not willing to let the government take children away from families because of obesity.  The idea that foster care is better than a family because a child is obese is just horrible.  If you want to control obesity in children, put gym classes back in the schools and encourage an active lifestyle.  That’s not the total answer, but it would help.

I need to say up front that I have always loved Ed Koch.  I probably disagree with him on everything politically, but I sincerely like him.  I think when God designed Ed Koch He said, “I need to design the perfect person to be Mayor of New York City.  He may not do a perfect job, but he will reflect the spirit of the city.”  That’s why I like Ed Koch.  I also respect him.  He has spoken out in a principled way on numerous occasions when what he had to say was not popular–but he spoke out anyway. 

Yesterday the New York Post reported that Ed Koch has stated that as a protest against President Obama’s policies on Israel he is considering voting for Bob Turner, the Republican-Conservative candidate for ex-Representative Anthony Weiner’s House of Representatives seat.  Mayor Koch stated that he would vote for Bob Turner if Turner backs Israel and opposes Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security cuts.

He urged Jewish New Yorkers and those who support Israel to vote Republican in the special election in September.  Mayor Koch is hoping that seeing a strong Republican vote by Democrats might cause President Obama to change his treatment of Israel and reestablish the special relationship America has had with Israel in the past.  I see no hope of that at all, but I admire the effort. 

There is only one logical reason that the Obama administration has treated Israel so badly–it has to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.  The country supplying arms to Iraq and Afghanistan and fomenting chaos in those two countries is Iran.  I honestly believe that President Obama came into office with the idea that he could charm Iran into bringing peace to the Middle East.  I think he felt that he had to abandon Israel to do this, but eventually, his policies would bring peace to Israel.  I think this idea is pure science fiction, but if you believe that you can charm anyone into cooperating with you, this is something you might attempt.  Remember that President Obama, as near as any records of his past that have been made public, has never really been challenged as to what he believes and what he is doing.  As a community organizer, he was in charge and no one argued.  I don’t know if dissenting opinions are allowed in the Obama White House.  I rather doubt it. 

What the President does not seem to understand is the role of radical Islam in the Iranian government.  When the radicals took over Iran in 1979, they pledged to set up a world-wide caliphate under Sharia Law with Iran as a major player and Iraq as its center.  Those goals have not changed.

I admire Mayor Koch for his statement of principle, but I doubt any actions he takes will have the desired result.

Yesterday, Reuters.com posted an article by James Pethokoukis about exactly what happens if the debt ceiling is not raised.  The article included this chart:

The chart illustrates a number of things.  Note how much more the government is spending than what it actually takes in.  Note also that interest is a major part of government’s monthly expenses.  One simple way to lower monthly expenses is to bite the bullet–cut overall spending and begin to pay down the debt in order to decrease interest payments.

The article answers a number of questions about what will happen if the debt ceiling is not raised.  Here are two of them:

Q: What happens on August 3 if the debt limit is not increased?

A:  …  Using August 2010 spending and receipts as a proxy, the Treasury will probably take in $5-$10 bn in revenue on August 3, leaving insufficient revenues to make Social Security payments partly unfunded even if all other spending is deferred. Since the Treasury has carried a minimum cash balance of about $20 bn since 2009, and currently carries a balance of $74 bn, Social Security payments might still be made by drawing down the Treasury’s cash balance.

Q: Are Treasury interest payments at risk?

A: We do not think so. … There are two basic reasons that interest payments should not be called into question: First, if the August 2 deadline is missed, it is very difficult to see the debate dragging to August 15, when interest payments are made, since we doubt there will much congressional appetite for a protracted lapse in borrowing authority.  … Second, the Treasury is likely to prioritize payments. While the sharp fiscal contraction that would result from prioritization would have negative short-term economic consequences and would be difficult to implement, it nevertheless seems likely if necessary.

Please follow the link to the article.  The article is one of the clearest explanations of what will happen if an agreement is not reached that I have seen.

CBS News posted a story today with the headline, “Obama says he cannot guarantee Social Security checks will go out on August 3.”  He is, of course, talking about what will happen if the Democrats and Republicans do not reach agreement on raising the debt ceiling.

Some thoughts–you mean Social Security checks are paid out of the deficit?  What happens to all the money collected in taxes for Social Security?  Isn’t there more money being paid in every week when people get paid?  So how could the debt ceiling be a problem for Social Security?

The article reports:

“Mr. Obama told Pelley (CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley) “this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out.””

The word I would use to describe that statement I am not willing to write on my blog.  This is an outright lie and it is blackmail.  If the Republicans do not stand up to this, not only are they stupid, there will be a third political party.  Any American who is paying any attention at all to what is going on in Washington should be deeply offended by this statement.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece about the taxes on Americans scheduled to being after the 2012 election–these taxes are an integral part of Obamacare. 

The article reports:

• Starting in 2013, the bill adds an additional 0.9% to the 2.9% Medicare tax for singles who earn more than $200,000 and couples making more than $250,000.

• For first time, the bill also applies Medicare’s 2.9% payroll tax rate to investment income, including dividends, interest income and capital gains. Added to the 0.9% payroll surcharge, that means a 3.8-percentage point tax hike on “the rich.” Oh, and these new taxes aren’t indexed for inflation, so many middle-class families will soon be considered rich and pay the surcharge as their incomes rise past $250,000 due to tax-bracket creep. Remember how the Alternative Minimum Tax was supposed to apply only to a handful of millionaires?

Taxpayer cost over 10 years: $210 billion.

• Also starting in 2013 is a 2.3% excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers. That’s estimated to raise $20 billion.

• Already underway this year is the new annual fee on “branded” drug makers and importers, which will raise $27 billion.

• Another $15.2 billion will come from raising the floor on allowable medical deductions to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

• Starting in 2018, the bill imposes a whopping 40% “excise tax” on high-cost health insurance plans. Though it only applies to two years in the 2010-2019 window of ObamaCare’s original budget score, this tax would still raise $32 billion–and much more in future years.

• And don’t forget a new annual fee on health insurance providers starting in 2014 and estimated to raise $60 billion. This tax, like many others on this list, will be passed along to consumers in higher health-care costs.

There are numerous other new taxes in the bill, all adding up to some $438 billion in new revenue over 10 years. But even that is understated because by 2019 the annual revenue increase is nearly $90 billion, or $900 billion in the 10 years after that. Yet Mr. Obama wants to add another $1 trillion in new taxes on top of this.

The article further reports:

The economic ironies are also, well, rich. Mr. Obama is now pushing to reduce the payroll tax by two-percentage points for another year to boost the economy, but he’s already built in a big increase in that same payroll tax for 2013. So if a payroll tax cut creates jobs this year, why doesn’t a payroll tax increase destroy jobs after 2013?

It is becoming increasingly clear that President Obama’s fiscal policies are not based on the health of the American economy but on election politics.  He allowed the ‘Bush tax cuts’ to continue in the January budget debates because he stated that raising taxes would cost jobs.  If raising taxes would cost jobs in December, how is it that raising taxes in July does not cost jobs? 

Republicans–stand your ground!!  No new taxes!!!  It’s the spending, stupid!!!

Recently The Blaze reported that Israel had been placed on the terror watch list by the Department of Homeland Security.  Last week, The Blaze reported that Homeland Security has acknowledged that this was a mistake done on the basis of “inaccurarte information.”  The article reports that Israel was placed on the list in May of 2011. 

The article reports:

“This list, which includes 36 nations, does not target government policies as the catalyst for inclusion. Rather, it looks at the likelihood that a traveler from a specific country might have terrorist ties. If a traveler from one of the listed nations is detained, that country’s presence on the list will spawn a special check by ICE (called a Third Agency Check or TAC).”

The Department of Homeland Security is supposed to protect us from terrorists–not accuse our friends of being terrorists.  An agency charged with maintaining our security and safety should not be making such major mistakes.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted a story about the dangers of dining out with friends.  Well, that’s not really what the headline of the story was, but that was what the story was about.  I am sure you have heard of this, but, just in case, I will give you the details.

Paul Ryan was dining out with friends (it wasn’t eating out because it was an upscale restaurant) at the Bistro Bis in Washington, D. C.  Susan Feinberg, an associate professor at Rutgers saw an expensive bottle of wine on his table and decided that it was not appropriate for him to be drinking good wine.  She took pictures with her cell phone and went over the Respresentative Ryan’s table and gave him a piece of her mind–to the point where the management of the restaurant asked her to leave. 

The article points out:

There are several lessons to be learned here:

1. In addition to the aeronautics industry — private jets! — obviously the winemaking industry is another one that shouldn’t produce jobs.
2. Rich people spending their own money is bad, because they’re not giving that money to the government for programs that don’t work.
3. It’s okay for a good person (Feinberg) to go to the same expensive restaurant as a bad person (Ryan), because she didn’t order the wrong thing.

Aside from the incredible rudeness exhibited by this professor, how is it anyone’s right to criticize what anyone else is eating at a restaurant?   It is bad enough that the government is trying to tell Americans how to spend their money, now we have the self-appointed restaurant police to help control the people they disagree with. 

I like the way the article sums up the events:

“That’s right: a busybody had some expensive wine at a restaurant and saw somebody she didn’t like having wine that was even more expensive, so she lurched over to his table and started berating him for his order. Then, because she thought it made him look bad, she decided to go to the press with it. Well, to TPM (Talking Points Memo), at least.”

This woman should be forced to make a public apology.  There is no excuse for her behavior.

On Thursday the Daily Caller reported that there actually is a Democrat budget proposal.  The article reported that last week the Senate Budget Committee, headed by Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, announced that a budget proposal had been finalized and would be released early this week (early in the week of July 7th).  The proposal is still not released, although the Democrat caucus has seen it.  Several Republicans in the Senate have sent a letter to Harry Reid asking that the budget proposal be made public.  It remains secret. 

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to predict what will happen next.  After a media-induced panic over the debt ceiling, the Democrats will drag out their budget at the last minute and say that the world as we know it will end if that budget is not passed exactly as it stands. 

Anyone want to make a bet?

On Thursday the U.K. Telegraph posted an article about a totally ridiculous restriction put on British soldiers in Afghanistan.  The British soldiers are fighting under the rules of engagement laid out by NATO. 

The article reports:

“British soldiers who spot Taliban fighters planting roadside bombs are told not to shoot them because they do not pose an immediate threat, the Ministry of Defence has admitted. 

“They are instead being ordered to just observe insurgents and record their position to reduce the risk of civilian casualties.”

This information was disclosed during the investigation into the death of Sgt Peter Rayner, 34, a soldier who was killed in October last year by an improvised explosive device as he led a patrol in Helmand Province, Afghanistan. 

The only good news in this article comes from a statement made by a British officer who recently served in Afghanistan:

“He said: “A British soldier manning a checkpoint at night might watch a man digging a hole for an IED 100 metres away and would not try to shoot at him. It’s a ludicrous situation.

“”There has to be an immediate threat to life and that’s a hard thing to prove. An IED does not count as an immediate threat.

“”The Americans are different – their Rules of Engagement are pretty liberal. If they even suspect someone of laying a bomb, they can shoot them.””

I understand that the accidental killing of civilians by NATO forces is seen as a victory for the Taliban, but this is ridiculous.  Allowing a terrorist to place an IED that later kills NATO soldiers is also a victory for the Taliban.  At least the American soldiers are allowed to shoot the terrorists!

As the debate on the debt ceiling continues, there are a few things to keep in mind.  I personally have considered playing BINGO during Democrat press conferences using the words shared sacrifice, tax cuts for millionaires, two unfunded wars, taking benefits from seniors in order to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans, etc.  These seem to be the talking points of the moment.  Notice that none of these talking points deal with spending.

Anyway, there are some people on the internet who have done the research and come up with some interesting numbers.

Newsbusters.org posted an article on Friday about the claim made in the New York Times that the debt ceiling problem was caused by the Bush tax cuts and the Republican refusal to raise revenues (that’s Democrat-speak for increase taxes).  The article points out that there has been a 41 percent increase in spending since the Democrats took over Congress in January 2007.  The article further points out that the last Republican-created budget signed by President Bush in 2007 was for $2.73 trillion.  Expected tax receipts were $2.57 trillion.  Those numbers seem like science fiction compared to today’s spending.

The article points out some of the creative math used in the New York Times article:

“In the Gray Lady’s strange world, eliminating the Bush tax cuts – which might raise $379 billion a year – completely wipes out a $1.5 trillion deficit.”

Wow,  Can I do that with my checkbook? 

On July 1, 2011, the Washington Post‘s Fact Checker Blog posted some of its findings about how the current Democrat talking points compare to facts regarding the deficit.  Glenn Kessler, who writes the blog reported:

“Clinton, in essence, was lucky to become president just as a revolution in computer and information technologies was unleashed.

“From 1992 to 1997, CBO estimated, revenue increased at an annual average of 7.7 percent in nominal terms, or about 2.4 percentage points faster than the growth of the gross domestic product, the broadest measure of the economy. CBO Deputy Director James L. Blum in 1998 attributed only 1 percentage point of that extra tax revenue to the 1993 budget deal. The rest, he said, came from capital gains.

“Between 1994 and 1999, realized capital gains nearly quadrupled, the CBO concluded , with taxes on those gains accounting for about 30 percent of the increased growth of individual income tax liabilities relative to the growth of GDP. (Linden says: “I can’t really answer the question about how much Clinton had to do with the economy. He presided over it.”)”

Don;t look for any of these inconvenient facts in the Democrat talking points.

This is a chart from a Heritage.org article written about the myths surrounding budget discussions.  The article was written on January 29, 2007!

One thing they did not predict–the spending has gone up much faster than the chart shows!

No, this is not an article about abortion–it’s an article about light bulbs–yes, light bulbs.  Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that on Monday the House of Representatives will vote on H. R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act.

The bill states:

“No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury.

“No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective.”

The bill is sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton and would allow Americans to buy and use any type of light bulbs they choose. 

The compact florescent lightbulbs, which the current legislation will force Americans to use in the near future, create an environmental hazard if broken.  Anyone who lives in the real world understands that occasionally light bulbs do break.  If you share your house with children or pets, this is not good.  It is time to give the American consumer the right to choose light bulbs.

Yesterday the Salem News posted a rather lengthy article about statements made in Mexico by Attorney General Eric Holder indicating that he was aware of Operation Fast and Furious long before the time stated in his testimony before Congress. 

The article reports:

“Holder openly proclaimed his connection to the operation in April 2009 during a publicized speech in Mexico, then told a Congressional Committee in May 2011, “I probably heard of Fast and Furious the first time in the last few weeks.””

In the age of video tapes of everything anyone has ever said, it will be interesting to see if this is even reported by the media and if it is, how Attorney General Holder will spin it.

The article also links to an article at Investors.com on July 8, which reports:

“Right there in the stimulus bill that no one in Congress bothered to read is $10 million for Project Gunrunner (aka Operation Fast and Furious), which resulted in the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and increased drug cartel violence.

“Right there in the “shovel ready” stimulus, no black humor intended, is a provision for $40 million for “state and local law enforcement assistance” along our border with Mexico and in high drug-trafficking areas, “of which $10 million shall be transferred to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, salaries and expenses for the ATF Project Gunrunner.””

Please follow the links to read both articles–in both cases they provide a lot of background information that actually explains what went on with this program. 

The story of Operation Fast and Furious is one of a government out of control with no one paying attention.  Part of the blame falls directly on the Obama administration, part of the blame falls on Congress for not carefully reading the stimulus bill, part of the blame falls on the American public for not paying attention, and part of the blame falls on the major media for not doing its job of reporting the story.  This is a major scandal and should be on the network news every night.

Investors.com reported yesterday that Eric Holder’s Justice Department has asked several major banks to relax their lending standards in order to make home ownership available to more Americans.  This is part of the Justice Department’s new crackdown on alleged discrimination, which so far has netted the government more than $20 million in loan set-asides and other subsidies from banks that have settled out of court rather than battle the federal government and risk being branded racist.  Sounds like Chicago politics to me.

The article reports:

“Justice spokeswoman Xochitl Hinojosa said the anti-discrimination notice “does not compel the banks to make loans to people who do not qualify.” She said such measures are “essential to remedy the harmful effects of the banks’ conduct.”

“But industry analysts fear Attorney General Eric Holder is rekindling an anti-bank witch hunt launched by Attorney General Janet Reno in the 1990s, when Holder served as her deputy.

“Some blame that in part for the subprime boom, because banks were ordered to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities. That crackdown spurred the American Bankers Association to distribute to its thousands of members “fair-lend ing tool kits” advising the adoption of more permissive underwriting criteria to help inoculate them from prosecution.”

Refusing to lend money to someone who cannot pay it back is not discrimination–it’s good business! 

The article further reports:

“Justice confirmed it has asked banks to keep its methodologies, which include computer-based statistical analysis, secret.

“”In certain circumstances, when a bank has requested details of our analysis, the department has requested that a defendant agree to a confidentiality agreement,” Hinojosa told IBD.

“Critics say Holder’s interpretation of civil-rights law is even more radical than Reno’s.

“For the first time, prosecutors are judging banks for the secondary impact their policies have on entire minority communities, not just households. And they’re ordering reparations accordingly.

“In announcing a recent $2 million settlement with Dallas-based PrimeLending, Civil Rights Division chief Tom Perez said, “We will require lenders to invest in the community that they’ve harmed.”

“Another Reno protege, Perez has compared bankers to Klansmen. Only difference is, he said, bankers discriminate “with a smile” and “fine print.” He said this kind of racism, though more subtle, is “every bit as destructive as the cross burned in a neighborhood.”

“Perez has put in place an infrastructure to enforce “fair lending” — including a first-of-its-kind Fair Lending Unit staffed with more than 20 lawyers, economists and statisticians.”

Making bad loans to a minority community does not help anyone.  Houses become vacant and everyone suffers.  What is needed here is a healthy dose of common sense.

Unfortunately, runaway spending is not a new thing to Washington.  In August 2010, the Heritage Foundation posted the following graph:

Washington politicians are continuing to spend money they simply do not have.  That is why there is a discussion of “raising the debt ceiling.”  Think about that a minute.  What they want to do is increase the amount of money they can borrow.  There is no interest in fiscal discipline.  This is like a person who calls his credit card company after losing his job and saying, “I know my credit card is maxxed out, but I have lost my job and I need a higher credit limit.”  Obviously, you would feel sympathy for the person–he just lost his main source of income–but would you raise his credit limit?  America has not lost it’s main source of income–it has simply spent too much.  There is no reason to raise the credit limit.  The only way I would support raising the credit limit is with some REAL cuts in spending.  It’s not about the revenue–it’s about the spending.

Today the Boston Globe reported that the televison broadcast images of the Fourth of July fireworks in Boston were altered. 

The article reports:

“Mugar (David Mugar, the Boston-area businessman and philanthropist who has executive produced the show for nine years) said the added images were above board because the show was entertainment and not news. He said it was no different than TV drama producer David E. Kelley using scenes from his native Boston in his show “Boston Legal” but shooting the bulk of each episode on a studio set in Hollywood.”

I realize that this may seem like a small thing, but think again.  Many people (myself included) watch the fireworks on television because we don’t have the patience to deal with Boston traffic.  We expect to see what we would see if we actually attended the event in person.  If we are not seeing exactly what is happening, we expect to be informed of that also.

I am not as concerned about the fact that the images were altered as I am about the fact that until viewers started questioning what they saw, no admission was made of the alterations.

Please follow the above link to the article to read the comments of some of the people who viewed the show who were familiar with the layout of Boston and realized that the pictures were altered.