Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article by Bill Dickens, senior economist specializing in network economics for Tacoma Public Utilities in Tacoma, WA, and an adjunct Professor of Economics at Florida A&M University.  The article describes the impact on the Gulf States of two tax proposals currently being discussed by Ctongress.  Both tax proposals have to do with the production of domestic energy and the companies who produce domestic energy.

The first proposal is to change the way income earned abroad is taxed.  Under current laws, income that is earned abroad and taxed (and paid) abroad is not taxed again by the United States.  Changing this policy would put American-owned businesses at a disadvantage against companies owned in other countries.  At a time when the American economy is struggling, do we really want to make American companies less competitive?

The second proposal involves the repeal of a tax section known as Section 199.  This tax credit was enacted six years ago to encourage job growth in all American industries–from auto manufacturing to the film industry.  However, Congress is calling for a repeal of this tax credit only in the oil and gas industry.  This is a targeted tax change that will only impact the oil and gas industry.  Is that really a good idea right now?

When gasoline prices reached $4 a gallon during the end of the Bush Administration, President Obama stated on one of the Sunday morning shows that he did not have a problem with the idea of $4 a gallon gas, the problem was that the price had risen too quickly.  Looking at the policies of the Obama Administration in the area of domestic energy production, I believe we are moving into an error of very expensive gasoline.  Although gasoline prices are reasonable now, if the ban on drilling in the Gulf continues and Cap and Trade legislation is passed, I believe we will see $5 a gallon (or more) gasoline prices by the end of the winter.

Domestic energy production is a matter of national security as well as economic security.  I am hoping that the elections in November will give us a Congress that will better protect both our national security and our economy.  The current Democrat Congress is doing neither.

On Wednesday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the impact of Cash for Clunkers on the current used car market.  Because of the number of used cars destroyed as a result of the Cash for Clunkers program, used cars are scarcer and more expensive.

The article cites the impact of the program on some used car prices:

• Cadillac Escalade – 35.6% increase
• Chevy Suburban – +34.2%
• Dodge Grand Caravan – +34%
• BMW X5 – +33%

Generally speaking, people who buy used cars buy them because they are less expensive than new cars.  A quality used car will last almost as long as a new car and be cheaper to buy.  I live in Massachusetts, where the excise tax on a new car is considerably more than the tax on a used car.  I bought a new car in February.  In addition to the sales tax on the car, I paid a personal property tax of over $500.  Had I bought the same car a year old, that cost would have been closer to $200 or $300. 

The article concludes:

“As predicted last year, the people most hurt by the price increases are those who can least afford them.  The used-car market usually attracts people who need transportation on a budget, who cannot afford to buy new.   By destroying a quarter’s worth of trade-ins in three weeks and permanently taking them off the market, the Obama administration has forced an artificial inflation by supply restriction.  Moreover, they did so by subsidizing new-car sales that would have occurred anyway, eating up three billion dollars in taxpayer money.

“In other words, the White House spent $3 billion to make used cars more expensive for working-class families.  Nice work.”

This is another example of government interference in the free market.   When the government gets involved, there are always unintended consequences.

Today’s Boston Herald posted an article about the protest off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard by some of New England’s commericial and recreational fishermen.  The fishermen were protesting  President Obama’s restrictions on commercial fishing. 

The article states:

“The protesters already have reeled in a couple of big fish: In the past few days, both U.S. senators from Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown and Democrat John Kerry, have spoken out in support of the fishermen.

“I have no problem with (Obama) protecting species that need to be protected,” Brown said. “But there’s been very little flexibility with (regulators) when they get new information that they’re wrong.””

Hopefully as more Congressmen become aware of this attack on the commercial fishing industry, the restrictions will be re-evaluated and more realistic fishing levels will be put in place.  Senators John Kerry and Charles Schumer and Congressman Barney Frank have been calling for a change in the current restrictions for some time.  Hopefully, we will see a change in the restrictions in time for the small fisherman to save his business.

We are approaching the five-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  There is a video posted on the website of the New Orleans Times Picayune of two of the newspaper’s reporters remembering a bicycle ride on the Monday after hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans.  It is a moving video that reminds us how dangerous a hurricane can be.

There is also an article in yesterday’s Times Picayune which details how Hurricane Katrina changed the demographics of the city of New Orleans.   The city is now about twenty-two percent smaller and not quite as poor as it was before the hurricane. 

The article points out how the population has shifted:

“The suburbs are different. St. Tammany has grown by an estimated 8 percent since the storm, and St. Bernard and Plaquemines have lost about 37 percent and 15 percent of their populations respectively, according to census data gathered by the Greater New Orleans Community Data Center.”

The local economy has been helped by the recovery money that has come in for the rebuilding of the city, but the city has been impacted by the nationwide recession.  The city has remained poor, however, and apartment rental costs have climbed to the point where it is difficult for people to afford the rent. 

New Orleans is an amazing city.   Hopefully it will be able to continue as a center for arts and music in the future.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting today that under Obamacare, over three million senior citizens on Medicare drug plans will have to look for other plans. 

Meanwhile, Associated Press posted an article at Yahoo News which put a positive spin on these changes.

Regardless of how you feel about the changes at Medicare, the fact remains that the promise made was the promise broken. 

There were three main promises made by President Obama when the Healthcare program was debated:

• It won’t increase the deficit
• It won’t raise the cost of health care
• If you like your current healthcare insurance, you will be able to keep it

Regardless of how you spin it, we are watching all of those promises be broken.  Obviously, you cannot lower the cost of health insurance by adding coverage for millions more people.  If health insurance is run by government bureaucrats, someone has to pay the salaries of those bureaucrats.  Whenever the government overregulates something, consumers lose.  It is becoming very obvious that all the promises made were not going to be kept.

There is about two months left before the Congressional elections.  Please understand that a vote for any Democrat is a vote to continue to implement Obamacare.  As long as the Democrats hold majorities in the House and the Senate, the program will move forward and the new bureaucracy will be created.  If the Republicans take the House, the funding for the new bureaucracy can be stopped and the program delayed until it can be repealed.  I do not see healthcare being repealed while President Obama is still in office, but the damage it will do can be limited.  If you believe that Obamacare is a good program, please google Massachusetts health reform (the prototype for Obamacare) and see what has happened in Massachusetts since it was implemented.  If you love your grandparents, please vote Republican in November.

On Tuesday, the Boston Herald posted an article about leaders in the commercial and recreational fishing industries planning a protest outside the harbor at Martha’s Vineyard during the President’s stay there. 

According to the article:

“The protest is being organized after a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of federal lawmakers — including the core of the President’s Congressional base on banking and health care issues — have given up hope of working productively with Obama’s top appointee for oceans and fisheries, Jane Lubchenco, who heads the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

I guess what has happened here is that the fishing industry has realized that the Obama Administration does not negotiate.  The protest is scheduled for noon today. 

The article further points out:

Since her appointment to head the NOAA by President Obama, Lubchenco, who had been an officer of the Environmental Defense Fund and a leader of the Pew Oceans Commission, has pushed to convert the fisheries into commodities markets under a management system known as catch shares.

In a statement to the Times soon after her confirmation by the Senate, Lubchenco’s office said her goal was to see a “significant fraction of the vessels … removed.”

With the stocks rebuilding strongly, fishermen wonder at the need to reduce the size of the work force.

There are some real questions about what the Obama Administration is attempting to do to the fishing industry.  There are examples of excessive fines that have put small fisherman out of business and abuses in the enforcement process.    This seems to be an attack on small businesses that create jobs and feed Americans.  Some of these fishing businesses have been in the same family for generations.  These businesses are part of the backbone of the New England (and East Coast) economy.  I am not sure the protest will be effective in changing Washington, but more people need to be aware of what is happening to the fishing industry.

This is another reason to change the composition of Congress.  We need to elect leaders who will protect the small businessman–not drive him out of business with unnecessary regulations.

This is long, but worth reading.

The Royal Project Foundation is a program set up by the King of Thailand in 1969.  The aim of the project was to encourage farmers to grow crops other than poppies (which fueled the drug trade and supported all sorts of unsavory characters). 

According to their website:

“Under the directorship of H.S.H. Prince Bhisatej Rajani,this Royal Project has pursued its mission in collaboration with the Royal Thai government, foreign governments, universities, public and private agencies and volunteers.”

The website lists the four goals of the program:

1. Offer a helping hand to all humankind;

2. Ensure natural resources for conserving a sustainable future;

3. Eradicate opium poppy cultivation and opium derived addiction problems;

4. Encourage a wise and proper balance in utilising and conserving land and forest resources.

From what I understand, the program has been successful.  Michael Yon, in a Facebook post, stated that he will be doing some further investigation of the project to see how it might be used in Afghanistan.  Since Michael will be returning to Afghanistan shortly, I hope he will be able to share his information and see it put to good use.

First of all, I would like to say that I was alerted to this story through a Michael Yon post on Facebook.  If you are on Facebook, Michael’s posts are very insightful in terms of what is going in the Afghanistan and other countries in that region.  Mr. Yon was embedded with American troops in Afghanistan until a disagreement with General McChrystal forced him to leave.  He is on good terms with General Petraeus and will be headed back there soon.  You can ‘friend’ him on Facebook to follow his travels.

CNN is reporting today that dozens of Afghani schoolgirls and their teachers became ill when their school was attacked with poison gas. 

According to the article:

“The latest incident, this one at a high school, is the ninth such case involving the poisoning of schoolgirls, said Asif Nang, spokesman for the nation’s education ministry.

“Dr. Kabir Amiri said 59 students and 14 teachers were brought to the hospital, and were faring better.”

Obviously this is not an isolated incident.  There is something in the Taliban variety of Islam that is very threatened by the idea of women getting an education.  There is a book entitled “Three Cups of Tea” written by Greg Mortenson that deals with the author’s experiences with setting up schools for girls in Pakistan.  He encountered many of the same problems–schools being blown up, death threats, etc. 

The article at CNN further states:

“A report compiled last year by the humanitarian agency CARE documented 670 education-related attacks in 2008, including murder and arson. Much of the violence in what CARE called an “alarming trend” occurred at girls’ schools.”

It would be very nice if all Muslims stepped up to the plate and denounced this sort of violence against women and girls, but obviously that is not going to happen.  Until the part of the world that enjoys freedom and appreciates the blessing of freedom stands up and says no to anyone who opposes education for everyone, this will continue.  If America does not stand up and defeat the people who cling to this ideology, we will regret it.  Some of our ideals will have been lost.

Please follow this link to You Tube.  There you will find a video of a supposed planning session of a Congressman trying to spin the fact that he is unwilling to hold any Town Hall meetings this summer.  The video was put out by Heritage for America and is very well done.  If you haven’t seen much of your Congressman this summer, you will probably enjoy watching this!  In order for something to be funny, there has to be a grain of truth in it.  The authors of this video definitely understood that.

Fox News reported Monday that:

“…under President Obama, the numbers of arrests and deportations of illegals taken into custody at work sites plummeted by more than 80 percent from the last year of the Bush administration. In the current fiscal year 2010, which ends Sept. 30, ICE has arrested 900 workers.”

President Obama stated that his administration would focus its enforcement of illegal immigration laws by targeting workplace activities.  If that were true, why has the number of illegals taken into custody at their work places dropped so drastically.  Somehow, I don’t believe it is because there are no illegals working in the country because we have solved the problem.

At the same time workplace arrests are down 80 per sent, the article states:

“…employer audits are up 50 percent, fines have tripled to almost $3 million and the number of executives arrested is slightly up over the Bush administration.”

The decision to fine companies and arrest executives is another example of the basic anti-business mindset of the Obama Administration.  I find it interesting that the punishment for hiring illegals under the Obama Administration is aimed at the businesses–not the illegals.  To me, it comes across as just another basic attack on business in America (one that will raise money for the government in the process).

Michael Barone is the expert on American politics–voting trends nationally, statewide, and districtwide.  He posted an article in yesterday’s Washington Examiner talking about possible unintended consequences of this year’s Congressional and gubernatorial elections. 

According to the article:

“…the optimistic scenario belongs to the Republicans.  If they hold what they have and capture a few governorships (Ohio, Tennessee, Wisconsin) and a few legislative chambers (the Houses in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania and both houses in Wisconsin), they will control redistricting in 11 states with more than five House seats, including Florida, George, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas.  Those states are projected to have 178 House seats.”

Now before anyone gets too excited about this, we need to remember the Republican’s gift for setting up circular firing squads and shooting themselves in the foot.  Also, if the Democrats control California, the state is big enough to offset any redistricting gains elsewhere.

Mr. Barone also points out the the voters right now do not have predictable party alignments.  Party affiliations are very fluid right now, so that even what was a safe district for one party three years ago could go in a different direction very rapidly.

It is going to be an interesting November.

Red State posted an article today about the impact of the six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. 

The article states:

“The Obama Administration has filed some 27,000 pages of documents in Federal court which disclose the process by which it decided to forge ahead with a deepwater drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico, in spite of expert advice, public opinion and a Federal judge’s ruling.”

This needs to be looked at in context, but first let’s look at the impact.  The Administration wants to extend the drilling moratorium until November 30.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the moratorium will cost the area 23,000 jobs.  Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) invited Dr. Christina Romer, Chair of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers, to testify before the Senate Small Business Committee hearings.  Dr. Romer has not appeared and in a conversation with Senator Landrieu stated that the Administration did not currently have economic impact data on the moratorium, but would be initiating a review.

The article points out that the oil rigs, which actually drill the wells, are the economic engine of the region.  To shut these down is to impact all the support industries that supply manpower, parts, transportation to the rigs, and the infrastructure that supports the workers.  The moratorium will have a serious negative economic impact on the entire region.

There is one more part of this picture that needs to be remembered.   On June 18th of this year, a website called Infowars referenced a Harvard study on the impact of President Obama’s energy policies.

The article states:

“President Obama has a solution to the Gulf oil spill: $7-a-gallon gas.

“That’s a Harvard University study’s estimate of the per-gallon price of the president’s global-warming agenda. And Obama made clear this week that this agenda is a part of his plan for addressing the Gulf mess.”

If the goal is $7 a gallon gas, there might be a few things to think about.  Considering that the cost of gasoline for Congress is paid for by the taxpayer, does Congress have any reason to want to keep gas prices low?  Since the cost of Presidential travel is paid for by the taxpayer, does the President have any incentive to keep prices low?  What will be the impact on the economy and on the average American of $7 a gallon gas?

I really do support the idea of keeping pollution as low as possible.  Clean air is a good thing.  However, American car manufacturers have worked to provide Americans with relatively clean cars.  The move to electric cars will not actually make things any cleaner–it may cut emissions, but how clean is the source of electricity?  We need practical people in our government to formulate cohesive energy policy–people who understand both economics and the environment and are willing to balance the two.  Until we have balance betweem the economy and the environment, we will not have prosperity.

Today’s Boston Herald is reporting that Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick wants to hire Parsons Brinckerhoff – an architect of the Hub highway debacle – to help build the MBTA’s Green Line extension.  Governor Patrick has been highly critical of Republican candidate for governor, Charles D. Baker, for his role in the Big Dig fiasco. 

According to the article:

“Like the Big Dig boondoggle, the MBTA project costs have skyrocketed – ballooning from $560 million in 2007 to $954 million – and will miss a legally mandated 2014 deadline.”

The Big Dig was completed in December of 2007.  The project was originally estimated to have a $2.8 billion cost.  By the end of 2006, over $14.6 billion had been spent on the Big Dig.  With a cost overrun like that, why would anyone even consider hiring the same company for a major state construction project again ?

To hire the same company and expect a different result is insanity.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the repeal of Section 9006 of Obamacare.  Section 9006 is the section of the law that requires businesses to issue a 1099 form for every purchase of a gift or service of more than $600.  Each transaction will require a 1099 form. 

Nebraska Republican Sen. Mike Johanns has introduced an amendment to repeal Section 9006. 

According to the article:

“Johanns report that one of his small-business constituents estimates the provision will add $23,000 to his firm’s tax compliance costs.  Every dollar that goes to preparing more paperwork for the IRS is one less dollar available for investments in new jobs.  Considering the Congressional Budget Office’s prediction Friday that unemployment is going to remain above 9 percent for months to come, Section 9006 could not be more ill-timed.” 

It is unreasonable to expect business to expand when they know they will be faced with the sort of increased paperwork and accounting procedures that Section 9006 represents.  The healthcare bill was over 2,000 pages long.  Unfortunately, I suspect there are many other provisions that would need to be repealed in order for the economy to recover from its present recession.  Businesses thrive (and hire people) when government intervention lessens and businesses have the freedom to grow without requiring new paperwork and accounting procedures every day.  It’s time for the government be less intrusive and let growth occur.

Friday’s New York Daily News reported that many of New York’s construction workers are saying that they will not work on a mosque if it is built on Ground Zero. 

According to the article:

“”It’s a very touchy thing because they want to do this on sacred ground,” said Dave Kaiser, 38, a blaster who is working to rebuilt the World Trade Center site.”

The idea of refusing to work on the mosque is growing.  One construction worker posted the “Hard Hat Pledge” on his blog which is for construction workers to sign saying they will not work on the mosque. 

Meanwhile, NBC New York reports that there will be a protest opposing the construction of the mosque at Ground Zero today.

The article at NBC reported:

“Gov. David Paterson has offered to help find developers of the mosque secure another location — even on state land — if they agree to move a little farther from the Ground Zero site.”

So far that offer has been turned down.

When you look at the whole picture of this controversy, you wonder why New York City issued the permit for the mosque in the first place.  If this were truly about freedom of religion, why would it be so important to the Muslims to build the mosque at Ground Zero?  The other concept to keep in mind is the one of reciprocity.  Let’s look at the way Muslims around the world treat people of other religions.  In countries where Muslims are in control of the government, there is no freedom of religion.  In Saudi Arabia, you can be sent to jail for having a Bible.  In Turkey, which actually has a relatively moderate Muslim government, Christian churches keep a very low profile for their own protection.  As we saw recently in Afghanistan, medical missionaries were murdered because the Taliban thought they might be sharing their Christianity.  The concepts of ‘honor killing’ and sentencing someone to death for converting to another religion from Islam is also a bit severe. 

Ground Zero is sacred ground.  For that reason I believe it is inappropriate to build a mosque there.  I have no problem with building a mosque anywhere else in New York City if the zoning laws permit.  If the people backing the mosque project continue to attempt to move forward with building the mosque, I think they are simply going to stir up more opposition to the project.  I simply do not see this mosque being built without major political upheaval in New York and across the country.

Michelle Malkin posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the ‘National Ocean Council’, a 27-member panel created by President Obama in late July. 

The article states:

“The panel will have the power to implement “coastal and marine spatial plans” and to ensure that all executive agencies, departments and offices abide by their determinations.  The panel has also been granted authority to establish regional advisory committees that overlap with existing regional and local authorities governing marine and coastal planning.”

This is not the way to manage oceans.  Even Chuck Schumer objected.  The article states:

“Even New York Sen. Charles Schumer slammed the administration’s junk science-based fishing limits at a meeting this week between NOAA’s Lubchenco and Long Island recreational fisherman.  Draconian regulations, he said, according to the New York Post, “put the industry on death’s door.””

Please follow the link above for further details on who is on the panel.  Also keep in mind that the legislative branch of our government never got to vote on this measure.  This really is no way to run a government.

Will global warming policies make sweaters more expensive?  “What?” you innocently ask.   On Thursday, Bloomberg,com posted an article about New Zealand sheep farmers giving up sheep farming due to the government carbon credits program.  The government carbon trading program, which began in 2008, pays the farmers more to plant trees than to grow sheep for wool and mutton. 

The article reports:

“The nation’s carbon-trading project was expanded in July to require energy producers to pay for their emissions. By 2015, the system will include agriculture, forcing farmers to pay for emissions their cows and sheep make through belching.”

The article further points out:

“Even the government says the program will have little impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealand ranks 51st in greenhouse gas emissions with 0.2 percent of the global total, according to the United Nations.”

It needs to be remembered that when the government subsidizes an activity, there will be more of it; when an activity is taxed, there will be less of it.  This government program could have major implications for the mutton and wool supply in coming years.  As we move to combat global warming (which may or may or not be man-made), we need to remember that the law of unintended consequences is a powerful thing.

Yahoo News posted a Reuters article today about Iran beginning to fuel its nuclear reactor.  Russia is providing the fuel for Bushehr, a nuclear facility that Iran claims will be used to provide electric power to its people.  Russia built the reactor at Bushehr and is committed to fueling it and to taking away the spent fuel rods.

According to the article:

“Iran, which says its nuclear program is entirely peaceful, said it needed to enrich to that level as a deal with major world power and the IAEA to supply special fuel for a medical reactor in Tehran had fallen apart.

“Reacting to the Bushehr opening, British Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said: “We have always respected Iran’s right to develop an exclusively civil nuclear power program.

“The problem is Iran’s continued refusal to satisfy the IAEA and international community that its work on uranium enrichment and heavy water projects are exclusively peaceful,” he said.

“Israel, widely assumed to be the only Middle East country to have nuclear weapons, has said a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to its existence, raising concerns Israel could attack Iran’s nuclear sites.”

Iran has always claimed that its nuclear program was for peaceful purposes, but its rhetoric against Israel has always been anything but peaceful.  The fueling of this reactor will probably result in an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities at some point in the near future.  The questions remains whether the strike will be done with or without the consent of the United States.

Andrew Breitbart’s Big Peace website posted an article today about the upcoming peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians.  The article points out that Palestinian President Abbas is refusing to have face-to-face talks with Israel unless the talks are based on the idea of Israel returning to its pre-1967 borders.  The first thing to remember here is that if the pre-1967 borders did not bring peace in 1967, why should we assume that they will bring peace now?

The article brings out one very important point:

“That “green line” running through the West Bank is the 1949 Armistice Line. The armistice line was created solely because that’s Israeli and Arab forces stopped fighting at the end of the War of Independence (with some added adjustments in certain sectors).”

The article shows the evolution of the idea of making the 1967 borders permanent.   It points out:

“You also hear politicians and diplomats claim that Israel must withdraw to the pre-1967 borders as called for in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

“Anti-Israel forces changed the meaning of 242 by adding one simple article to the resolution “the.” They claim that 242 calls for Israel to withdraw from “the” territories taken during the Six Day War. The resolution actually says that ‘Israel should withdraw from territories’ taken during the war (no article). Adding the article changes the meaning from withdrawing from some territories to all territories.”

The thing to remember here is that the United Nations has never been a friend of Israel.  In recent years the Arab bloc at the UN has become more powerful.  They have worked to put nations with repressive dictators as rulers on the human rights committee and welcomed leaders who were known terrorists.

Peace between Israel and Palestine will not come until some basic changes are made.  We need to examine the school books of the children in Palestinian schools to see what they are being taught.  Does the message encourage peace or hatred?  We need to look at the children’s television programming that is being broadcast in Palestine.  What does it promote?  You can do this research on your own with a good ‘google’ search.  Until we stop teaching hatred to children, peace will not come to this region.

Please follow this link at You Tube to see a beautiful video.  We need to remember those who fight for our freedom and sacrifice so many things for us.

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an Associated Press article today about the last combat troops that are leaving Iraq.  Their combat mission is complete.  There will still be 50,000 American troops in Iraq to be called on if needed and Special Forces to help Iraqis find terrorists.  I am proud of President George Bush for his willingness to complete the mission in the face of the constant criticism of Democrats in Congress (and occasionally some Republicans).  I am proud of the troops that completed the mission and their families for the sacrifices they made.  I am concerned, however, that this is a very small number of troops we are leaving in Iraq.

One of the goals of Iran is to destabilize Iraq.  I fear that because of the small number of troops remaining in Iraq, the Iranians will see an opportunity to create havoc. 

Thank you to all the American (and other) soldiers who secured freedom for Iraq.  The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein.  I hope the people of Iraq will be a stabilizing force for democracy in the Middle East and will be able to enjoy freedom for a long time to come.

Keep America Safe has posted a video on its website of families of people who were killed on September 11, 2001, speaking out against the mosque at Ground Zero.  It’s about two minutes long and well worth watching.  Please follow the link and watch the video.

CNS News reported yesterday that James Miller, the Pentagon’s leading authority on nuclear arms, told the Senate Armed Services Committee, “Even large-scale Russian cheating on a new nuclear arms treaty would not hurt U.S. security because U.S. nuclear strengths would more than offset any Russian violations, the Obama administration has concluded.”

Senator John McCain asked him why, if Russian cheating wouldn’t matter, had the Administration bothered to negotiate the treaty.  I agree with Senator McCain (that does not happen often).

The article points out:

“The ability of U.S. missile-bearing submarines and bombers to survive any Russian first strike, and to deliver a devastating counterstrike, would be “unaffected by even large-scale cheating” by the Russians, Miller said. That fact will discourage Russia from trying to secretly exceed the pact’s limits on warheads, he said.

“What’s more, in a crisis the U.S. would be able to add extra nuclear warheads to missiles aboard submarines and bombers – a capability the Russians apparently do not have, Miller said.”

Don’t count on it.  I really don’t understand why we want this treaty.  We can conclude from past experience that Russia’s idea of how to comply with a treaty might be different from ours.  We can also observe that Russia right now is not working toward peace.  Russia has fomented trouble in the now independent countries that were formerly part of the USSR.  They have promised missile defense systems to Iran (not yet delivered), and they are openly helping Iran with its nuclear program.  This does not sound like a quest for peace.  So why are they willing to sign an arms reduction treaty?  What’s in it for them?

I long for the days of Ronald Reagan–“Trust, but verify!”

Yesterday the Fall River Herald News reported on a visit to Fall River by Republican candidate for the Third Congressional District, Marty Lamb.  In the past week of so, a number of small business owners have come forward to support Mr. Lamb in his bid for the Republican nomination. 

Speaking on the steps of the Government Center Tuesday afternoon, Mr. Lamb spoke about his campaign platform.  The article states:

“”It’s about the economy and creating jobs,” Lamb said. “That’s what everybody I’m talking to really cares about. Especially in the cities in the 3rd District. People want to work, they need to work. Over the past 14 years under the current congressman, jobs have been going away, not coming here. We need to step forward and start creating jobs.”

“Lamb has some experience in that regard, operating Lamb and Browne P.C., a small, full-service law firm based in Holliston.  

“”I’m the only candidate that owns a small business,” Lamb said. “I’ve experienced the difficulties that go along with creating jobs and the problems of retaining jobs.””

This is the candidate we need in Congress.  At his website, Marty For Congress, you will find detailed proposals for solving the financial problems our country is currently experiencing.  Marty is not afraid to go on the record with his plans and solutions.  We need to elect him to implement those plans.  I need to mention here that I know Marty Lamb personally.  Before I retired, I worked for a company that did business with his law firm.  His firm was pleasant to deal with, paid their bills on time, and was run in a totally ethical manner.  I am proud to be supporting him for Congress.  I truly believe that he is the man we need to send to Washington.