Yesterday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about some campaign statements by five freshmen Democrats seeking re-election.  All five claim to have voted against the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP).  There is only one problem–they were not in Congress when it was passed.  By the time they were in Congress, the money had already been allocated.  There was a vote on a disapproval resolution (which they supported) which was purely symbolic –the money was already spent.

According to the article at Hot Air:

• Mary Jo Kilroy says she “voted against the bank bailout.”
• Kathy Dahlkemper says she voted “against a bailout that helped Wall Street.”
• Frank Kratovil claims to have cast his vote in opposition to “the big bank bailout.”
• Dina Titus’ ad maintains she “even voted against the bank bailout.”
• Glenn Nye’s ad tells viewers he went “against his own party” and “voted against the Wall Street bailout.”

This is garbage.  The thing to remember here is that as long as Democrats in the House of Representatives elect Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House, the runaway spending will continue.  As long as Democrats control the House of Representatives, the runaway spending will continue.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.  If the voters continue to elect Democrats, runaway spending will continue.  Northing will change.  The Republicans do not completely have their act together on the subject of spending, but if enough Tea Party candidates are elected, the Republicans will get the message.  There is a reasonable hope that they will deal with the runaway spending.  There is almost no hope that the Democrats will address the issue of spending–their solution to the deficit will be to increase taxes on everyone and permanently cripple the economy.

As you watch the campaigns for the House of Representatives and Senate across the country during this election cycle, think about what the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate have done in the past two years.  Are you willing to see those policies continue?  What are the consequences of continuing in the direction we are now headed?  Don’t be fooled by claims that candidates voted against spending when the votes were strictly for show.  If you have doubts about a candidates voting record or his vote on a specific bill, please visit Thomas.gov.  All votes taken in the House and Senate are recorded there.

We need informed voters to keep America strong and free.  This election is very important–all of us need to stay informed.

The Washington Examiner posted an editorial yesterday detailing the decline in Labor Union membership (and the popularity of labor unions) as the influence of Labor Unions in the Obama Administration has grown to new levels. 

The article points out:

“First, with only 7 percent of the total, fewer employees in the private sector are union members today than ever before.  Even when numbers for both the private and public sectors are combined, only 12 percent of American workers are union members.  Fewer members mean less income from compulsory dues.  Less money coming into union treasuries ought to result in fewer partisan campaign contributions going out.

“But by borrowing millions from the same banks that labor leaders so often demonize as greedy enemies of the working man, union bosses in 2008 were able to spend record amounts on electing Democrats at all levels of government.”

What did the unions get for their money?  Let’s look at four examples of the Obama Administration showing partiality to unions:

1.  Ten days after becoming President, President Obama signed three executive orders limiting what federal contractors can say to employees during union organizing drives, made it more difficult for federal contractors to fire incompetent employees, and directed federal contractors to make sure their employees were aware of their organizing rights.

2.  The next executive order required federal agencies to use union-favored Project Labor Agreements on largely federally funded construction projects.

3.  The Landrum-Griffin Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act of 1959, designed to increase union financial transparency on forms required to be filed with the government, was strengthened during the Bush Administration so that union members would know what was being done with their dues.  Hilda Solis, Obama’s secretary of labor, has nullified those disclosure rules.

4.  When the Obama Administration forced General Motors and Chrysler into bankruptcy, they imposed settlements on the companies that granted ownership stakes of 17.5 percent and 55 percent, respectively, to the United Auto Workers Union.  This was a total violation of standing bankruptcy laws.

If you would like to see this kind of political favoritism continue, re-elect your Democrat Congressman.  If you are sick of watching unions buy political favors, vote Republican.

Roger Hedgecock at Human Events posted an article today about the ‘culture wars.’  Mr. Hedgecock believes:

“Underlying all politics is the culture. It is changing. The dominant liberal culture has yielded division and decay in American society–and a government-directed economy destroying our standard of living. The rejection of liberal culture has begun; the rejection of liberal politics will follow.”

The examples Mr. Hedgecock cites of the progressive culture include driving Christianity from the public square, Planned Parenthood fighting for abortion rights, the ACLU fighting for the right to burn and desecrate the American flag, and civil rights morphed into race-based preferences.

The progressive agenda in 2010 has reached a point where much of the general public thinks it has gone too far.  Mr. Hedgecock cites the examples of the Ground Zero Mosque being touted as an example of America’s religious freedom at the same time the liberals sued to remove a cross in a remote area of California’s Mojave Desert and sponsored hate crime legislation that would put Christian pastors in jail for reading Biblical passages condemning homosexuality.

There was further hypocrisy in the healthcare debate regarding federal funding of abortion.  In 2008 liberals promised federally-funded abortion.  When the healthcare bill was being debated, Representative Bart Stupak and some other Democrats demanded that the ban on federal funding of abortion continue.  Promises were made, an executive order issued, and the issue was supposedly put to rest.  Later it was discovered that:

“Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius was given the power to write regulations governing required coverage in all health insurance plans under the Obamacare bill. A notorious pro-abortion advocate, Sebelius prepared to require abortion as a covered procedure, with federal funding for those who could not afford it.”

This was another example of liberal culture moving forward over the objections of many Americans.  Mr. Hedgecock points out:

“Americans by 60-70% want this “reform” repealed. Obama and Co. won the legislative battle, but lost the culture. Now they are losing the politics as well.”

Culturally, America tends to be center right.  The northeast leans left, as does the west coast, but the Americans who live in the rest of the country tend to be center right.  That is why President Obama is losing the support of the majority of Americans–he is governing from the extreme left.  As Americans, we do not seem to be very good at finding middle ground.  Hopefully after seeing the disaster the policies of the left have been we will move right.

This article is based on an article that was posted yesterday at Yahoo News and an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday.

Yahoo News reports that the Justice Department is filing a lawsuit against Joe Arpaio, the sheriff of Arizona’s Maricopa County.  The lawsuit charges that Sheriff Arpaio is refusing to cooperate with a federal investigation into allegations of discrimination and illegal searches and seizures by the department.

According to Yahoo News:

“Arpaio told the Arizona Republic that he thought the lawsuit was “camouflage” for a federal attempt to curtail his anti-illegal immigration sweeps in mostly Latino communities. He also said he had begun cooperating with federal authorities and thought they were making headway toward a solution.”

Well, all may not be what it appears to be.  The Washington Examiner article reveals:

“…in September 2008, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, known as ICE, did its own investigation of Arpaio’s office– and gave it a clean bill of health.  Arpaio’s lawyers recently got a copy of the ICE report through the Freedom of Information Act.”

It seems as if the Obama Justice Department has very strange ideas of what legal cases need to be follow up on and what legal cases need to be ignored.  I would be a whole lot more convinced that this was not a political lawsuit if the Justice Department had been willing to follow up on the voter intimidation suit against the Black Panters.  I believe that the Obama Administration uses the Justice Department for political reasons.  As long as the Democrats control Congress, this will continue.  Please vote Republican in November and bring justice back to the Justice Department.

Last week, South Coast Today posted an article about the protest by commercial fishermen staged off Martha’s Vineyard. 

The article deals with the protest and the people who have been hurt by the overly strict regulations on fishing, but at the heart of the story is a runaway government agency.

According to the article:

Bob Vanasse, the executive director of the industry advocacy group Saving Seafood, put the issue in the best perspective.

It’s not environmentalists versus fishermen, he said. It’s both the environmentalists and fishermen versus a rogue bureaucratic agency.

Think Jane Lubchenco, the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator who promised reform but delivered another round of weak-science regulation.

Think Dale Jones, the never-fired NOAA law enforcement director who shredded documents showing stricter enforcement of Northeast fishermen than all others. The man who refused to tell Congress whether his junket trips were funded by those same fishermen’s fines.

Think of an agency that used decades worth of faulty data gathered on the Albatross, and that even now refuses to give up that faulty data.

Think of an agency that, based on a loophole, adopted the most Draconian regulations possible, even though the Magnuson Act forbid such extreme measures.

(The Magnuson Act that governs fisheries requires that regulations be the ones that have the least impact on the commercial fishing effort, and that’s being ignored.)

Fourth District Congressman Barney Frank has proposed an amendment to Magnuson that would require a referendum among fishermen when the agency uses regulations that involve a fishing quota system.

Frank has given the White House a temporary reprieve on firing Lubchenco so this protest was one last effort to get the president’s attention before Frank reopens the issue.

Besides the pleas of Frank and Sens. John Kerry and Scott Brown, Gov. Deval Patrick has demanded changes from Commerce Secretary Gary Locke.

And some 5,000 fishermen, back in February, went to the mall in Washington in an effort to get President Barack Obama’s attention on the rogue agency.

But they did not.

This is a situation that impacts not only unemployment for East Coast fishermen, but also plays a part in where we get our seafood as a nation.  The government bureaucracy in the fishing industry has gotten out of hand and needs to be pushed back.  There is no way that what is being done to the fishermen could be Constitutional.

This post is based on two articles, one from the New York Post today, and one from Yahoo News yesterday.

The New York Post article is about what has happened to the concept of science being unbiased in the debate about man-caused globall warming.  The InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (according to their website), has recently finished a review of the practices of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and has found many problems in the claims in the United Nations documents. 

For example, the article states:

“For example, the IPCC’s much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035.  The claim was actually false–yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.”

What are the results of bogus science?  The article at the Post cites one instance:

“…based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, “[ICPP Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 3100,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp…and the lion’s share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers.”

“Thus, the Times concluded, “EU taxpayers are funding reasearch into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.””

Now to the story from Yahoo News.  According to the article:

“A bit of a propaganda war is heating up in California over Proposition 23, a citizen’s initiative which could suspend the state’s landmark greenhouse gas reduction law.

“Backed by manufacturers and Texas oil companies Valero and Tesoro, the ballot initiative would halt enforcement of the 2006 emissions law, AB32, until California unemployment, now over 12 percent, sinks to 5.5 percent for at least a year. Backers of the “California Jobs Initiative” say it is necessary to protect Californians from untimely financial hardship.”

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa of Los Angeles is fighting Proposition 23, stating that “more Californians will get sick if Prop. 23 passes.” 

This is a very interesting battle.  I was in California last week and at one point someone living in San Jose told me that they had regulations on when they could use their fireplaces because at times the air quality was so bad.  I really hate to see that kind of government intrusion, but I also don’t like the idea of brown air.  It is also interesting that the Mayor’s campaign against the relaxation of the emissions law is aimed at the poor.

The article points out:

“The mayor surrounded himself with activists from Latino neighborhoods who released a statement saying that Prop. 23 “will hurt low-income communities and people of color first and worst,” and called for the mobilization of voters from low-income areas. They circulated a four-page report laying out the environmental violations and fines assessed against the two companies.”

I really don’t know what the answer is here.  I know that California is very unique because of the way the winds and climate act and that impacts pollution in the state.  It would be nice to think that a compromise between the health of the people and the unemployment numbers can be worked out.

The claim that the change in the emissions law would impact the poor more than the average citizen reminds me of an old Rush Limbaugh comment on a potential New York Times headline.  Mr. Limbaugh once commented that if the newspapers had advance notice on when the world would end, the New York Times headline would be “World To End Tomorrow–Women and Children Hardest Hit.”  I think we need to find a balance here.

Today’s Washington Times reported on the release of two Yemenese men who were detained at Amsterdam airport on Monday.  Ahmed Mohamed Nasser al-Soofi and Hezam al-Murisi were arrested at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport at the request of U.S. law enforcement officials.  The men were released today without being charged with anything. 

Initial tests of one of the men’s luggage had shown a trace of explosives.  Later, more accurate tests did not reveal explosive material.

In a story posted on Monday ABC News reported:

“In addition, officials said, al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O’Hare.”

This whole story really does not make any sense.  I strongly suspect this was a test to see if the baggage inspectors would pick up the image of a cell-phone-triggered bomb.  Also, the list of things in the luggage does not sound like the normal contents of the suitcase of your everyday traveler.  Added to the mix is the fact that Yemen is to terrorism what Afghanistan was to terrorism up until September 11, 2001.

To me, this is an indication that generally speaking we are not serious about stopping terrorism.  The taping together of watches or cell phones is not normal packing procedure.  I strongly suspect that this was a dry run for something horrible that we will see in the future.

The Hatch Act of 1939 is a United States federal law whose main provision is to prohibit federal employees (civil servants) from engaging in partisan political activity.  According to a story in the Washington Examiner on Monday, Education Secretary Arne Duncan sent a memo to more than 4,000 employees of the Department of Education on Wednesday inviting them to join Al Sharpton’s ‘Reclaim the Dream’ rally on Saturday.  Mr. Sharpton created the event in reponse to Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally at the Lincoln Memorial.

Technically, the e-mail does not violate the Hatch Act, but it made at least one department employee uncomfortable.

The article reports:

“”It sends a signal that activity on behalf of one side of a political debate is expected within a department.  It’s highly inappropriate…even in the absence of a direct threat,” (David) Boaz (executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute) said.  “If we think of a Bush cabinet official sending an e-mail to civil servants asking them to attend a Glenn Beck rally, there would be a lot of outrage over that.””

Unfortunately, the conservative movement has been too polite too long.  We need to learn to apply the same standard of conduct to liberals that liberals apply to us.  If sending this e-mail is acceptable, then it is acceptable for someone on the right side of the political spectrum to do the same thing.  If sending this e-mail is unacceptable, then the people who sent it need to be reprimanded at least, and action taken against anyone who practices politics on government employees in the future.

The information in this article is from an e-mail I received from Representative John C. Fleming from Louisiana.  Representative Fleming is a Medical Doctor.  His website at fleming.house.gov has more detailed information and source information.

The Medicare cuts in the new healthcare reform act are approximately $500 billion.  This is a summary of the cuts that will be made in the next three years. 

In 2010, Medicare will cut reimbursements to inpatient psychiatric hospitals.

In 2011, these are the changes to Medicare:

• Medicare cuts to home health agencies begin.
• Wealthier seniors ($85K/$170K) begin paying higher Part D premiums.
• Medicare cuts begin to ambulance services, ambulatory surgery centers, diagnostic labs, and durable medical equipment.
• Seniors are prohibited from purchasing power wheelchairs unless they first rent for 13 months.
• New Medicare cuts to long term care hospitals begin.
• New Medicare cuts to hospitals and cuts to nursing homes begin (FY12)
• Medicare Advantage cuts begin. Participating seniors will face premium increases, benefit cuts, or both.

In 2012, the follow changes are made:

• Medicare reimbursements for dialysis treatments are cut.
• Medicare cuts to hospice begin.

In 2013 (after the Presidential election) Medicare reimbursements to hospitals that serve low-income seniors will be cut.

According to the email:

“WHAT THIS MEANS FOR YOU:  When providers get paid less by Medicare for services seniors depend on, many may be forced to decrease their services or close some of their locations just to make ends meet.   This means that seniors may experience a decrease in their access to essential care, which is already a problem for many in rural districts.  The cuts to Medicare Advantage may cause many of these insurance providers to stop offering plans to seniors, forcing seniors back into traditional Medicare.”

The bottom line here is that healthcare reform is being done at the expense of senior citizens.  As the baby boomers become eligible for Medicare, the money that Medicare receives from the government will be cut.  The people who have paid into Medicare almost all of their lives are the ones whose benefits are being cut.  Meanwhile, there is nothing in this bill to prevent illegal aliens who have paid nothing into Medicare from getting all the expensive medical treatment they need (assuming they are the right age). 

This is a bill that needs to be repealed and replaced with true healthcare reform–reform that will allow the private sector to make enough money to treat the poor and the senior citizens to get the healthcare they need.  Vote Republican in November to see “Repeal and Replace.”

This ia an amazing chart.  It comes from an article posted at Investors.com.  As you can see, the Iraq War represents a very small part of the current deficit. 

According to the article:

“As President Obama celebrates the official end of combat operations in Iraq, a war and a strategy he both opposed, the Congressional Budget Office tells us that in terms of national treasure, the president’s economic strategy has resembled Pickett’s Charge during the Civil War more than the surge of Gen. David Petraeus that turned the tide in Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

It also needs to be pointed out that if we keep enough troops in Iraq to give the government a chance to stabilize (as we did in Germany and Japan after World War II), the positive change in Middle East politics and balance of power will be well worth it.  Would someone please tell me what President Obama’s economic stimulus has accomplished?

The article further points out:

“The CBO’s Budget and Economic Outlook published this month puts the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom at $709 billion for military and related activities, including training of Iraqi forces and diplomatic operations. The projected cost of the stimulus, not counting interest on the added debt, is $862 billion.”

The Democrats have been in charge of Congress since January 2007.  Admittedly, it would have been nice if President Bush had vetoed their budgets, but the fact remains that Congress sets the budget–not the President.  If you want to see deficits spin further out of control, re-elect Democrats in November.  If you believe that federal spending can be restrained, vote Republican.

This article is based on an article in the Washington Post in February and a Heritage.org article in July.  The article in the Washington Post stated that the civilian federal employees and the military would receive a pay increase of 1.4 per cent in 2011.

The article at the Washington Post points out:

“That’s much lower than the 2 percent civilian pay jump this year and the military’s 3.4 percent increase. The proposed military pay bump is the smallest bump since 1973.”

At the same time, the article at Heritage.org points out that:

“The federal government pays its employees substantially more than they would earn in the private sector…(the federal government) pays hourly wages 22 percent above that of comparable private sector workers.”

For example, an average sergeant in the Army with four years and service and one dependent would receive $ 52,589 a year, including base pay, housing, subsistence allowances, and tax benefits.  A U. S. postal carrier makes approximately $80,000 a year, included his benefits.

Keep in mind that Congress has not yet passed a budget for the coming year.  The Democrats currently in power do not want to pass a budget until after the November elections–they don’t want to make the hard decisions that some of their supporters might not agree with.  It will be interesting to see how all of this all shakes out.

Flying home from California yesterday on United Airlines, I met a really sweet young couple flying to Denmark with their two young children–one child was one and one child was five or six.  They were flying there to spend a few months with the husband’s family–he is Danish and his wife is an American.  I thought of this family when the story broke about the terrorists suspects being arrested in Amsterdam.  I realize that Amsterdam is in a different country, but there were people of all ages on the plane with the arrested terrorists.

Yesterday ABC News reported that two men on a United Airlines flight from Chicago to Amsterdam have been arrested for “preparation of a terrorist attack.”   

According to the article:

“(Ahmed Mohamed Nasser) al Soofi was found to be carrying $7,000 in cash and a check of his luggage found a cell phone taped to a Pepto-Bismol bottle, three cell phones taped together, several watches taped together, a box cutter and three large knives. Officials said there was no indication of explosives and he and his luggage were cleared for the flight from Birmingham to Chicago O’Hare.”

Al Soofi checked his luggage on a flight going to Washington’s Dulles airport for connections on flights to Dubai and then Yemen, but did not board the plane.  Instead, he met Hezem al Murisi and boarded the plane to Amsterdam. 

It is standard practice to remove the luggage on someone who does not board the flight the luggage is going on.  The luggage was removed and inspected.  The mock bomb set-up was discovered.

I have a few questions about this.  Had al Soofi boarded the plane with the luggage, would the fake bomb have been detected?  How good is our luggage screening process?  Are there explosives the terrorists can use that will not be detected?  If so, if they can get a mock bomb through without explosives, all the terrorists need to do is find an explosive that will not be picked up by dogs or sensors.  Also, in this arrest, the terrorists just learned that the terrorists has to be willing to die in the attack–if he does not board the plane with the bomb, the bomb will be taken off.  

The terrorists we are fighting do not hesitate to kill innocent families.  We need to remember that.  The extreme Islamists are at war with any part of civilization that does not adhere to their standard of Islam.  We need to find a way to identify the people who put these plots together and lock them up for the rest of their lives.  Targeting innocent people is not acceptable behavior in any civilized society.

In case anyone has noticed that blog posts have been somewhat irregular for the past two weeks, I would like to explain that I was experiencing the “Griswold Family Vacation.”  I will be writing about some of the things I saw in my visit to California in some future posts.  California is a beautiful state–I wish I could magically transport the Southern California weather to Massachusetts!

I will be posting an article about what is happening in the Central Valley in California, where extreme environmentalists have shut off the water to the farms.  This used to be the ‘bread basket’ of the nation–now it is miles and miles of empty fields.

I also had a chance to see the movie “Despicable Me” with two of my granddaughters.  It is a great movie for young children.  It has a really good message.  It is amazing what is being done with animation in today’s movies.

I spent a day at Knott’s Berry Farm (mostly at Camp Snoopy).   At the end of the day, the park sells holographic glasses that do amazing things to the lights in the park (only in California!).  The park was clean, well-run, and my granddaughters really enjoyed having their pictures taken with the Peanuts characters.

I also attended a family reunion in Santa Rosa and visited the Charles M. Schultz museum there.

Now it’s time to get back to work!

The source for this article is an article by Scott Johnson at Power Line posted today.  His source is a much longer article at Big Peace by Christine Brim.  The article by Christine Brim is much more detailed and well worth reading. 

The White House is presenting a workshop tomorrow put on by a number of government agencies.  The workshop is for leaders of about 20 Muslim groups.  The purpose of the workshop is to provide “funding, government assistance and resources” for these groups.

According to Power Line:

“Working from an Islamic Society of North America email newsletter, Ms. Brim notes that the workshop will apparently afford special access for the organizations in attendance. The organizers pledge to provide “direct access” and “cut through red tape.” Readers with long memories may recall that the ISNA is perhaps best known as one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Hold Land Foundation prosecution. More good news: an iftar dinner will be held after the workshop.”

According to the article at Big Peace, the groups attending are associated with the Muslim Brotherhood.  The article points out:

“The Muslim Brotherhood, founded in 1928, is a global Islamist political movement dedicated to imposing Shariah law on all nations and institutions.  Their credo is “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.””

This does not seem to be a wise use of taxpayer dollars.  Somehow I don’t believe that the attendees at this meeting are working toward becoming more assimilated into American culture.  (Although the fact that they are looking for ways to get government money might be an indication that I am wrong on that!)  American culture is not perfect, but I prefer our Constitution to Shariah Law.

Ed Lasky at American Thinker posted an article today about another promise made in Obamacare that is simply not working the way it was supposed to.  In the Obamacare plan was a tax credit that was to be given to small businesses to help them with their increased healthcare costs under Obamacare.  Now let’s stop right here for a minute.  The people who were selling us Obamacare knew all along that it was going to increase the cost of health insurance for everyone and increase the cost of health insurance for small businesses.  Somehow I don’t remember hearing the supporters of Obamacare bring that up in the discussions.   For the true picture of the future of Obamacare if it is enacted as written, google “Massachusetts healthcare reform” and see what government healthcare has done to Massachusetts.

Anyway.  This spring the government mailed out postcards to four million businesses explaining the tax credit program and how it would work.  There has not been a great response.  Why?  The tax credit phases out for companies that pay an average of $25,000 a year to their employees or that employ more than 25 people.  In states where the cost of living is high and workers’ wages are high, businesses get no tax break.  In other parts of the country, the tax credit is so low it is insignificant.

The article points out:

“The legislation “is just not doing what we had hoped,” says Steven Selinsky, the incoming president of the National Association of Health Underwriters.” 

Why is that a surprise to anyone?  Another reason to vote Republican in November!

Ken Connor,  Chairman of the Center for a Just Society in Washington, DC., posted an article at Townhall.com about the recent ruling by Judge Royce Lamberth which places a temporary injunction against President Obama’s Executive Order  (which overturned restrictions on federally-funded embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) put in place by former-President Bush).  The problem with the President’s Executive Order is that there is a federal law passed in 1996 (during the Clinton Administration) which prohibits federal funding of research involving the creation or destruction of human embryos.

In the article, Mr. Connor wonders:

“Is this the philosophy of science that President Obama had in mind when he spoke of science’s “proper place?” Is this why his executive order discontinued funding for alternatives to ESCR, alternatives that have proven more successful than the embryonic approach without any of the ethical controversy? Is this why he felt justified in manipulating the power of his office to override standing federal law? It’s clear from the president’s words and actions on this issue that the answer to all of the above is a resounding “yes.””

We do need to remember that in the past, policy on ESCRhas been decided by elected officials in Congress.  If President Obama wants the 1996 ban on funding research that creates or destroys human embryos and to discontinue funding for alternative research, he needs to ask Congress to pass a law–not take matters into his own hands.  As Mr. Connor points out, there are valid alternatives to embryonic stem cell research.  There has been progress in treating certain medical conditions using cells from umbilical cords and using adult stem cells.  To defund the research that is bearing fruit in order to make a political statement does not help improve anyone’s health.  Hopefully, the judge’s ruling will hold and the funding for alternatives to ESCR will continue.

In recent weeks, we have all been hearing all kinds of things about Iran going nuclear.  We have heard rumors of attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities by Israel or the United States, and we have heard reports of Russia supplying missile defense systems.   What we haven’t heard a lot of is what is happening inside Iran in terms of the relationship between its people and its government.

Michael Ledeen posted an article at the Wall Street Journal last week on some of the internal unrest in Iran.  Michael Ledeen, a scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, is the author of “Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West” (St. Martin’s, 2009).

Mr. Ledeen points out recent communication problems within the regime.  According to the article:

“A few weeks ago, according to official and private reports, the Iranian air force shot down three drones near the southwestern city of Bushehr, where a Russian-supplied nuclear reactor has just started up. When the Revolutionary Guards inspected the debris, they expected to find proof of high-altitude spying. Instead, the Guards had to report to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei that the air force had blasted Iran’s own unmanned aircraft out of the sky.”

Evidently the Iranian military had deployed the drones, but had neglected to tell the Iranian Air Force.  This sounds more like Keystone Kops than a successful dictatorship. 

There have also been a series of recent attacks against the Iranian oil industry.  A pipeline to Turkey was blown up last month, and there was an explosion in a natural gas pipeline.   There was also an explosion at a petrochemical plant used to convert natural gas to fuel for vehicles.

The Green Movement (the movement that opposes the current government) is gaining strength.  The best solution to Iran going nuclear would be for the current government to fall.  A true democracy in Iran would be a big step toward peace in the Middle East.

The letter than follows was posted on tcunation.com. Snopes has researched the letter and found it to be authentic.  This is a long entry, but well worth reading.

Harold B. Estes is & much honored WW II vet is well known in Hawaii for his 70-plus years of service to patriotic organizations & causes all over the country. A humble man without a political bone in his body, he has never spoken out before about a gov’t official — until now. He dictated this letter to a friend, signed it and mailed it to the president.

———–

Dear President Obama,

My name is Harold Estes, approaching 95 on December 13 of this year. People meeting me for the first time don’t believe my age because I remain wrinkle free and pretty much mentally alert.

I enlisted in the U.S. Navy in 1934 and served proudly before, during and after WW II retiring as a Master Chief Bos’n Mate. Now I live in a “rest home” located on the western end of Pearl Harbor, allowing me to keep alive the memories of 23 years of service to my country.

One of the benefits of my age, perhaps the only one, is to speak my mind, blunt and direct even to the head man.. So here goes.

I am amazed, angry and determined not to see my country die before I do, but you seem hell bent not to grant me that wish.

I can’t figure out what country you are the president of. You fly around the world telling our friends & enemies despicable lies like: ” We’re no longer a Christian nation.” “America is arrogant” (Your wife even announced to the world,” America is mean- spirited. “Please tell her to try preaching that nonsense to 23 generations of our war dead buried all over the globe who died for no other reason than to free a whole lot of strangers from tyranny and hopelessness.)

I’d say shame on the both of you, but I don’t think you like America, nor do I see an ounce of gratefulness in anything you do, for the obvious gifts this country has given you. To be without shame or gratefulness is a dangerous thing for a man sitting in the White House.

After 9/11 you said,” America hasn’t lived up to her ideals.”

Which ones did you mean? Was it the notion of personal liberty that 11,000 farmers and shopkeepers died for to win independence from the British? Or maybe the ideal that no man should be a slave to another man, that 500,000 men died for in the Civil War? I hope you didn’t mean the ideal 470,000 fathers, brothers, husbands, and a lot of fellas I knew personally died for in WWII, because we felt real strongly about not letting any nation push us around, because we stand for freedom.

I don’t think you mean the ideal that says equality is better than discrimination. You know the one that a whole lot of white people understood when they helped to get you elected.

Take a little advice from a very old geezer, young man.

Shape up and start acting like an American. If you don’t, I’ll do what I can to see you get shipped out of that fancy rental on Pennsylvania Avenue. You were elected to lead not to bow, apologize and kiss the hands of murderers and corrupt leaders who still treat their people like slaves.

And just who do you think you are telling the American people not to jump to conclusions and condemn that Muslim major who killed 13 of his fellow soldiers and wounded dozens more. You mean you don’t want us to do what you did when that white cop used force to subdue that black college professor in Massachusetts , who was putting up a fight? You don’t mind offending the police calling them stupid but you don’t want us to offend Muslim fanatics by calling them what they are, terrorists.

One more thing. I realize you never served in the military and never had to defend your country with your life, but you’re the Commander- in-Chief now, son. Do your job. When your battle-hardened field General asks you for 40,000 more troops to complete the mission, give them to him. But if you’re not in this fight to win, then get out. The life of one American soldier is not worth the best political strategy you’re thinking of.

You could be our greatest president because you face the greatest challenge ever presented to any president. You’re not going to restore American greatness by bringing back our bloated economy. That’s not our greatest threat. Losing the heart and soul of who we are as Americans is our big fight now. And I sure as hell don’t want to think my president is the enemy in this final battle.

Sincerely,
Harold B. Estes

The American Thinker Blog posted a story today about a British soldier who returned to England after being seriously wounded in Afghanistan.   Lance Corporal Johno Lee lost his right leg in an explosion in Afghanistan in 2008.

Upon his return to England, Lance Corporal Lee was fitted with a prosthetic leg.  He has been able to function very well, driving to work and living as normal a life as possible.  When Lance Corporal Lee applied for a disabled parking permit with the Notinghamshire County Council, the permit was refused.  He was told that he was still young and “may get better.” 

According to the article:

“The disabled war veteran said “I replied that they possibly did not quite understand the situation and I thought it unlikely my leg would grow back.””

The Council has stated that it plans to meet with Lance Corporal Lee to review his situation.  Hopefully, he will receive his disabled parking permit quickly.

The only comfort I can find in this story is the fact that bureaucracy is as bad in Britain as it is in America.  I do wonder how carefully the people in charge read the soldier’s application.  Possibly this case will cause the Council to review such applications more carefully in the future.

All of us remember the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.  The fact that this bombing occurred is a tribute to political correctness and the stupidity of attempting diplomacy where strength is needed.

Investors.com posted an editorial yesterday about the prosecution of the terrorist who masterminded the attack on the USS Cole.  Included in the editorial was the following:

“It’s bad enough that our rules of engagement dictated that a U.S. warship visiting a known terrorist haven “was defended by sailors with unloaded guns,” as the London Daily Telegraph reported several weeks later. “If we had shot those people, we’d have gotten in trouble for it,” Petty Officer Jennifer Kudrick, a sonar technician and Cole survivor, told the Telegraph. “We would have gotten in more trouble for shooting two foreigners than losing 17 American sailors.”

“It’s also bad enough that the only reason the Cole was in Yemen to begin with was apparently because the Clinton administration was trying to get the Yemeni government’s support for Middle East peace initiatives.”

The charges against the Al Qaeda operative who planned the attack, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, have temporarily been dropped. 

The editorial states:

“A filing by the Obama Justice Department last week in the D.C. Court of Appeals stated that “no charges are either pending or contemplated with respect to al-Nashiri in the near future.” A military official told the Washington Post on condition of anonymity that it’s all politics because, he believes, the administration does not want a high-profile terrorist tried in a military tribunal before major figures held at Guantanamo Bay start having civilian trials — as the president and Attorney General Eric Holder prefer.”

The editorial also suggests that after the November election, al-Nashiri will be added to a case involving the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings pending before New York City U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

It is really sad that we have an administration that does not care enough about the death of American sailors to prosecute the terrorists who killed them.  Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is a terrorist.  Terrorists should not have the rights and privileges of American citizens.  It is also unfortunate that the Obama Administration again has chosen to go against the general wishes of the American people and play politics with this prosecution.  If the Administration were truly comfortable with this decision, they would try al-Nashiri in New York before the November election.

No, this is not a picture of a UFO.  It is a picture taken in 2009 in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, by Michael Yon.  The ghostlike image is a result of the Kopp-Etchells Effect.   The picture is from an article at Michael Yon‘s website.

 According to the article:

“Basically it is a result of static electricity created by friction as materials of dissimilar material strike against each other. In this case titanium/nickel blades moving through the air and dust. It occurs on the ground as well, but you don’t usually see it as much unless the aircraft is landing or taking off. The most common time is when fuel is being pumped. When large tankers are being fueled they must be grounded to prevent static electricity from discharging and creating explosions.”

The phenomenon is named after two soldiers who died in Afghanistan–one British and one American.  Please follow the link above for more pictures and to read about the heroism of these men.

Please pray for all of our troops who are deployed overseas.

Today’s Attleboro Sun Chronicle posted a story about Marty Lamb’s recent campaign stop in Attleboro.  Mr. Lamb is running in the Republican primary for Congress in the 3rd District in Massachusetts. 

According to the article:

“Republican congressional candidate Marty Lamb handed out barf bags in downtown Attleboro Thursday, asking voters “are you sick of Congress?””

Marty Lamb is running on a platform of tax cuts, fiscal responsibility, ending illegal immigration, improving the economy, and stopping Obamacare.  Details of his platform can be found at MartyforCongress.com.

I am supporting Marty Lamb in his campaign because I believe he will be willing to vote for legislation that will move Massachusetts and the nation forward economically.  I have talked with him about his ideas and have found him to be a consistent conservative.  I plan on voting for him both in the Republican Primary election and in the general election.