Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about the Ground Zero mosque.  He points out that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told San Francisco’s KCBS radio:

“There is no question there is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some. And I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded, How is this being ginned up that here we are talking about Treasure Island, something we’ve been working on for decades, something of great interest to our community as we go forward to an election about the future of our country and two of the first three questions are about a zoning issue in New York City.”

Well, if Ms. Pelosi is ready to investigate the funding of those objecting to the mosque, she may have a long list of people to investigate.  In his post, Scott Johnson confesses that he opposes the mosque, but is a volunteer. 

The article goes on to state:

“I have also disparaged President Obama’s support of the Ground Zero Mosque at the White House iftar dinner on Friday night. You might want to look into why President Obama backtracked on his support on Saturday before he sent his information minister out to support it again on Sunday. There’s something fishy there, don’t you think?

“I can’t speak for Debra Burlingame, the sister of American Airlines Flight 77 pilot Chic Burlingame. I’m pretty sure she hasn’t taken any money either, but the name of that group she’s affiliated with — 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America — sounds suspicious to me.

“Charles Krauthammer has devoted an entire nationally syndicated Washington Post column to expressing his opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque. I believe he is remunerated for his work, but I don’t think he took any money under the table for the Ground Zero Mosque column. You might want to ask your friends at the Post to check up on him.

“I should add that Michelle Malkin is exhibiting highly suspicious behavior. She not only harbors impure thoughts about the Ground Zero Mosque, she thinks you should be investigated for the Treasure Island land grab. Talk about guilty!

“UPDATE: Speaker Pelosi, Hugh Hewitt is also sounding mighty guilty, and Glenn Reynolds is suspiciously sarcastic!

“MORE: Bill Kristol isn’t helping his case either.”

I guess I need to figure out where I should go to turn myself in!

The debate on the Ground Zero mosque continues.  It has become a national political issue.  Generally speaking, it breaks politically along liberal/conservative lines.  There are exceptions, but they are exceptions.  Well, there is a new twist.

The same liberal Democrats who support the Ground Zero mosque and tell the conservative Republicans to ‘get over it’ are protesting a rally to be held in front of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. 47 years to the day after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I Have a Dream” speech. 

Andrews Breitbart’s blog Big Peace reports some of the comments by civil rights leaders:

“Beck’s choice of day and place for the rally “is insulting, is what it is,” Marc Morial, president of the National Urban League, said in an interview Monday. “August 28 is something special. It is a day that means something in American history because it was the demonstration in the United States in support of civil rights.”

“Beck’s plans are “an effort to embarrass and poke a finger in the eye of the civil rights community because Glenn Beck and his public utterances don’t necessarily demonstrate a consistency with the vision of King.””

They might have looked at the rally a little more closely before they made their statements.  The rally is being called the “Restoring Honor Rally” at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C.  It is being sponsored by Glenn Beck, and Sarah Palin will be attending.  The rally will also include David Barton, founder of WallBuilders.

According to the article:

“(Glenn) Beck said that he has no plans on turning his rally into a partisan political rally but intends it to be a rally to, “honor the troops, unite the American people under the principles of integrity and truth, and make a pledge to restore honor within ourselves and our country.” Beck further says that the date was not a conscious choice but just fit his schedule.”

That does not sound like anything Martin Luther King, Jr., would have objected to.

The article concludes:

“Democrat’s opinion we should refuse to allow Beck, an American who wants to support his country’s military, to hold a rally because it falls on a certain day and is held at a certain location, but we should not oppose people that sport a foreign ideology antithetical to American principles to build at a place that will promulgate that ideology near the same spot where their fellows killed thousands of Americans.

“The pretzel logic the left employs is a wonder, indeed.”

I guess the logic depends totally on who is involved.

Yesterday’s Washington Times posted a report on the verdict in the Rod Blagojevich trial in Chicago.  Rod Blagojevich was convicted on one count–lying to the FBI, only one of the twenty-four charges against him.  The maximum penalty for lying to a federal agent is five years in prison.  One juror reported that a single, female juror held voted against all the other charges, but agreed to that charge. 

According to the article:

“Mr. Sarnello (one of the jurors), of Itasca, Ill., later told the Associated Press that one woman on the panel “just didn’t see what we all saw.” Other members of the 12-person jury tried to persuade the holdout to reconsider, but “at a certain point, there was no changing,” he said.”

The Justice Department has agreed to retry to case after a judge declared a mistrial on twenty-three of the charges because of the deadlocked jury. 

The interesting turn in this trial occurred when Rod Blagojevich reversed his prior decision to testify.  The reason for this was either that the defense felt that they had already won the case and did not want to take a chance on his testimony losing it after it had been won or, along the same lines, Rod Blagojevich testifying in itself would have represented a considerable risk.  Former-Governor Blagojevich was known for his rather flamboyant style and might easily have gotten carried away on the witness stand and said things that would have undermined his defense. 

There is, of course, a reasonable amount of speculation about why the one juror was the lone holdout on twenty-three of the twenty-four counts.  If the Democrats fixed the jury to avoid the convinction of a Democrat governor during an election cycle, they made a mistake.  This verdict, combined with the fact that the Justice Department plans to retry the case, will keep the concept of Chicago political corruption in front of the voters through the election season.  If there was jury-tampering involved, it probably was not the best way to handle this trial.

It is understood by most of the world that the United Nations, the United States of America, and a number of interested parties have been unsuccessful in stopping Iran’s nuclear program.  Today’s Jerusalem Post posted an interview with former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton regarding Iran going nuclear..

Ambassador Bolton warned that if Russia follows through on its plan to deliver the fuel for Iran’s Bushehr nuclear reactor this weekend, Israel has only a few days to strike the plant.  After the fuel is delivered, a strike will trigger widespread radiation throughout the Middle East.

This is playing out as if it were a chess match.  By announcing that they will deliver the fuel to Iran this weekend, Russia took any element of surprise away from an Israeli attack.  The situation is further complicated by the fact that in addition to the Bushehr reactor, Iran has a number of uranium enrichment plants which are seen as the backbone of its nuclear weapons program.  Experts point out that Israel would be more likely to attack these plants than Bushehr.  Another part of the calculation is the fact that if Israel attacked the Iranian nuclear weapons program, Russia would quite likely provide Iran with the advanced missile defense system it has promised Iran but has delayed delivering.

I have no idea how this will all play out.  I do know that the idea of Iran with nuclear weapons is not good for the prospect of world peace or peace in the Middle East.  I hope that someone (whether it is Israel or the United States) will step up to the plate and put Iran’s nuclear program out of action.

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has introduced to move pensions from companies that have gone out of business to under the umbrella of federal Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC).

The article explains that:

“The PBGC is already significantly underfunded and taxpayers are its ultimate backstop. Yet the Casey bailout could dump as much as $165 billion in new liabilities on the PBGC, while multi-employer plans would get a clean bill of health. What a deal.

“This cause has taken on new political urgency, and no less than Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin has endorsed the bill. The reason for the rush is new rules that may soon be issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the green-eyeshade outfit that dictates how companies keep their books. Those proposed rules would expose the multi-employer time bomb.”  

The article reports:

“Thus the election year urgency to pass the Casey bill. If Democrats could shift orphan company pensions to the taxpayer, the liabilities for the remaining companies would fall dramatically, and the multi-employer scheme could continue. Unions and employers could keep promising current workers fabulous pay and benefits, without which they have little chance of stemming their continuing decline in membership.

“The losers? Those would be existing retirees in multi-employer plans, who were also promised such benefits but whose pensions would now be dumped on the feds. Even under Mr. Casey’s bill, payouts to current retirees would be limited to $21,000 a year–a fraction of what workers expected to receive.”

The bottom line here is very simple.  Unions will not have to use their dues to keep their pension funds solvent–the American taxpayer will do it.  Why would the taxpayer subsidize union pensions at the same time Social Security is operating at a deficit?

Stay tuned.  This legislation has a hight priority for the fall session of Congress.  It needs to be stopped.

This story is based on two sources, a Washington Post article posted Monday, and an article by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air also posted Monday.

The Washington Post reports:

“Federal regulators are considering taking the highly unusual step of rescinding approval of a drug that patients with advanced breast cancer turn to as a last-ditch hope.”

The drug in question is Avastin.

The article further states:

“Avastin was the first drug designed to fight cancer by blocking blood flow to tumors, which has been hailed as one of the first significant innovations in decades in the war on cancer. But Avastin is also one of the most expensive of a new generation of anti-cancer medications that only eke out a few extra months of life.”

The article at Hot Air points out:

“With the new ObamaCare regime in place, the issue of cost has now become openly part of the FDA process.  This is a perversion of their mission, which is supposed to only involve product safety and effectiveness, not bean-counting.  If Medicare doesn’t want to cover Avastin, that should be a separate issue handled by CMS and HHS.  This strongly suggests that the FDA has become politicized to a degree where their recommendations lose credibility — a dangerous situation for consumers and providers alike.”

This is one of those articles that I can honestly say I have no idea what the right answer is.  If you follow the link to the Hot Air article, you find the story of Leslie Twohig, 48, of Lothian, Md., who has been taking Avastin for eight months and credits the drug with helping her survive.  How much is her life worth?

The only thing I can conclude is that I believe to take an expensive drug to extend a period of extreme suffering is not right, but to take an expensive drug to prolong a life that is functioning well makes sense.  However, that is a personal opinion and I have no idea how it would work in a health insurance setting (particularly one run by the government). 

It seems to me that when we take treatment decisions away from doctors and put them in the hands of government bureaucracies, we are moving away from quality healthcare–not toward improving the system.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is reporting today that the Department of Justice has completed its six-year investigation into Tom DeLay’s relationship with corrupt lobbyist Jack Abramoff and found that there were no valid charges against Tom DeLay. 

The article reports:

“The Justice Department has informed former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) that the government has ended a six-year investigation of his ties to the disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to DeLay’s lead counsel in the matter, Richard Cullen, chairman of McGuireWoods.

“The investigation lasted through two presidents and four attorneys general. Its demise provides a stark footnote to the lobbying scandals that helped Democrats regain the House majority they held for 40 years and lost in the Republican revolution of 1994, which eventually made the pugnacious DeLay one of Washington’s top power brokers.”

Regardless of what you think of Tom DeLay, this whole lawsuit was an example of the Democrats using the Department of Justice for political purposes.  Tom DeLay’s political career was destroyed and the charges against him were used to defeat his political party in an election.  There was no substance to the charges, but they were still used very effectively against Tom DeLay and the Republicans. 

The outcome of this case should make us all think very carefully before we vote in November.  The time has come to believe very little of what you see and less of what you hear.  Do your own research, draw your own conclusions, and vote carefully.

CNS News posted an article today stating that Sheriff Larry Dever of Cochise County, Arizona, claims that the  U.S. Border Patrol has pulled back from enforcing the border in his county and neighboring counties because it is ‘too dangerous.’ 

According to the article:

“Dever stressed that the Border Patrolmen are ready and willing to perform their mission of securing the border, but that Border Patrol managers had determined that in “some places” the danger was too great and they wanted to avoid the risk of an international incident such as a cross-border firefight.”

Evidently the fear of provoking an international incident is more important than protecting American citizens. 

Customs and Border Protection replied to these charges by saying:

“There are areas down there in the Tucson Sector where for officer safety reasons, officers aren’t up on the line. For whatever reason–it may be a remote area,” said a CBP spokesperson. “We still have the means to detect entry, whether it is a sensor or a scoped vehicle. So the entry is detected, but the apprehension of the undocumented migrant isn’t affected until they reach a safe area.”

Somehow I wonder if everyone detected is actually caught.  The thing to remember here is that there are many people coming across the border illegally who are not simply looking for a better life where they can earn money to send back to their families.  A porous border is an open invitation to terrorists to smuggle people and weapons into America without fear of being stopped.  We need to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Today’s U. K. Daily Mail posted a story about President Obama’s remarks on Friday night and Saturday morning regarding the mosque to be built at Ground Zero.  If you question my statement that the mosque will actually be at Ground Zero, please remember that the building that will be torn down to build the mosque was damaged on September 11, 2001, when the tail section of one of the planes fell through the roof after flying through one of the towers.

The opening statements in the article are quotes from President Obama:

One of the statements I have heard from some of our politicians is that the building of the mosque is a local issue for New Yorkers.  I would like to point out that September 22, 2001, represented an attack on America–not simply New York. 

I would also like to mention that as I was driving around this morning running errands, I had an opportunity to listen to some of the local Massachusetts talk shows that I generally don’t get to hear.  If the callers on Massachusetts local talk shows are any indication, this is a national issue.  I don’t think anyone would argue that the Muslims have a right to build a mosque anywhere the zoning allows.  The problem is not one of rights, but one of sensitivities.  Anyone who understands the history of Islam and the significance of originally calling this mosque the Cordoba Mosque realizes that building this mosque is a provocative move.

Yes, the Muslims have the right to build a mosque at Ground Zero.  No, they should not be allowed to do so.

Fox News reported Friday on a press conference held by Maxine Waters to explain her roll is acquiring bailout money for a bank in which her family held a financial interest. 

According to the article Congresswoman Waters stated:

“…she had to intervene with the Treasure Department on behalf of minority-owned bankds seeking federal bailout funds — including one tied to her husband — because the Treasure Department wouldn’t schedule its own appointments.”

Congresswoman Waters further stated:

“…she reached out to then-Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson in late 2008 when his department failed to respond to the National Bank Association’s request for a meeting.”

That is very interesting since when the meeting was actually held, the only bank (out of an organization representing more than 100 minority banks) that showed up was OneUnited, the bank in which she had a personal interest. 

Congresswoman Walters says that she has not violated House rules and that she will not cut a deal (but obviously, if she actually did anything wrong, it was George Bush’s fault!).  It is going to be an interesting autumn.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a federal land grab proposed by the Obama Administration.  Mr. Morrissey points out that the federal government already  controls one in every three acres of American land. 

The article reports:

“At a “listening session” in New Hampshire last week, government bureaucrats trained their sights on millions of private forest land throughout the New England region. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack crusaded for “the need for additional attention to the Land and Water Conservation Fund — and the need to promptly support full funding of that fund.””

It should be noted at this point that the extremist elements of the environmental movement want the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to be freed from congressional appropriations oversight.  The Fund is currently supported by receipts from the government’s offshore oil and gas leases.

The article points out that:

“…in their energy/BP oil spill legislative packages. The Democrats have also included a provision in these packages that would require the federal government to take over energy permitting in state waters.”

In reponse to its actions, the Obama Administration received a letter from Texas state officials stating the following:

“”In light of federal failures, it is incomprehensible that the United States Congress is entertaining proposals that expand federal authority over oil and gas drilling in state water and lands long regulated by states… Given the track record, putting the federal government in charge of energy production on state land and waters not only breaks years of successful precedent and threatens the 10th Amendment to the United Sates Constitution, but it also undermines common sense and threatens the environmental and economy security of our state’s citizens.””

The thing to remember here is that the more land the government owns, the less land the private sector owns.  The less land the private sector owns, the less land is available for private sector use that might grow the economy.  Private sector uses of land that might apply in this case might be family recreation areas, in New England, ski areas, camping areas, and other businesses that would hire people, make a profit, and pay taxes.  This is another example of the administration’s lack of understanding of how the private sector grows the economy.

If you follow the link above to the Hot Air article, there is a clip from the movie “Blazing Saddles” that deals with land grabs!

Thursday’s Science Daily website posted an article about the effects of playing Nintendo Wii on people who have Parkinson’s disease.  Parkinson’s disease is a degenerative disease that impairs motor skills. 

Dr. Ben Herz of the Medical College of Georgia conducted an eight-week pilot study where 20 Parkinson’s patients spent an hour playing the Wii three times a week for four weeks. 

According to the article:

“Participants showed significant improvements in rigidity, movement, fine motor skills and energy levels. Perhaps most impressively, most participants’ depression levels decreased to zero.”

The article concludes:

“Game systems are the future of rehab,” Dr. Herz says. “About 60 percent of the study participants decided to buy a Wii for themselves. That speaks volumes for how this made them feel.””

The idea that people who suffer from Parkinson’s disease can enjoy themselves by playing Wii and at the same time improve their symptoms is fantastic.  Our local senior center also has a Wii that seniors can use during their time at the center.  This is definitely a situation where something designed to be fun actually has another really valuable use.

I was fortunate today to attend a seminar put on by an anti-terrorism expert.  There is no way I could actually condense the things that I heard into a blog post.  I do, however, want to share the opening quote of the seminar because it is definitely food for thought.

“Only a coaliton of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States.”

Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka Carlos the Jackal,  in Revolutionary Islam, pub. 2003

The seminar provided a lot of history and background on terrorism in the United States.  It was totally enlightening, but also disturbing.  It also pointed out the dangers of substituting political correctness for truth.  We live in a time of danger that requires honesty and vigilance on the part of Americans.  I hope we are up to the task.

On Thursday, the New York Post reported that General Motors planned to issue an initial public offering soon.  This action represents the government attempting to sell its interest in the company to private investors.  The writers of the article point out that in their minds the General Motors bailout was a model of corruption and cronyism.

In 2009 the government bought a majority stake in General Motors for $50.  This represents an amount equal to General Motors’ market capitalization in 2000. 

The details of the bailout by the government were in violation of normal backruptcy procedures.  Bondholders, who loaned GM a total of $27 billion, received 10 percent of the company.  The government loaned $50 billion and received about 61 percent.

The article futher reports:

“And the union — in return for the $20 billion that GM owed its health trust — got a remarkable 17.5 percent of the stock plus $2.5 billion in cash plus $6.5 billion in preferred stock carrying a dividend of about 9 percent.

“In other words, the UAW got three to four times as much as the bondholders for a smaller claim on GM’s assets. The union even boasted to its members in May 2009 that it had made no concessions on pay, health care or pensions in the restructuring.”

This was an example of the government choosing favored and unfavored groups.  Unfortunately, we are constantly seeing examples of this in the way TARP money and stimulus money is being handed out. 

The article wonders if small bondholders who were burned by the actions of the government in the General Motors bailout will be reluctant to invest in companies in the future.  Unfortunately, until the Obama Administration revises its policies on how businesses and investors are treated, economic growth may remain slow.

Informed sources are predicting that if the Democrat party loses the House of Representatives in the November election, there will be lame-duck session of Congress after the election to pass some of the legislation that the Democrats can’t seem to get passed now.  The logic is that since many members will have been voted out and thus not have to worry about being re-elected, they will be willing to vote for some of the more unpopular bills–Cap and Trade, Card Check, and tax increases.  I suppose that is possible, but it really would be political suicide for the Democrat party.  When I thought about that, I wondered why, even after the global warming scandals, the Democrats would still be pushing Cap and Trade.  Well, I think I have my answer–follow the money!

There was a very interesting article at the American Thinker yesterday.  The article reported that the Chicago Climate Exchange is running out of money and laying off employees.  What is the Chicago Climate Exchange?   It is a company that trades ‘carbon credits.’

The article points out:

“The only surprise is that Richard Sandor, who founded CCX in 2003 and was dubbed a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” in 2007, is being retained as an advisor. “Voluntary” trading of greenhouse gas emissions on CCX has all but dried up and prices have plunged from a high of over $7 per ton in 2008 to just 10 cents now, making recent stock market losses look rosy by comparison. Not exactly what Sandor, who once predicted a $10 trillion worldwide carbon market, expected would happen.”

Trading carbon credits is a very ethereal concept.  In essence, you are paying a company to allow you to pollute, and theoretically they will use the money to pay someone to plant a tree somewhere.  My husband keeps threatening to print up a business card saying that if someone will pay him $5, he will not take a shower for a day, thus saving the environment.  We could debate what that would do to his immediate environment, but you get the picture.  However, the interesting part of the article is at the end.

The article points out:

“The biggest losers have been CCX’s two biggest investors – Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs – and President Obama, who helped launch CCX with funding from the Joyce Foundation, where he and presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett once sat on the board of directors.”

Now I understand why Cap and Trade is still being pushed, even though it may destroy the American economy and the Democrat party–look at who the investors are!

John Fund posted an article in today’s Wall Street Journal about the plans for the lame-duck session of Congress to convene after the November election. 

The article reports:

“This week, the House voted down a resolution opposing a lame-duck session to tackle hot button issues such as new taxes and climate change. Even though six Democrats joined Republicans in voting against considering such legislation before the new Congress is seated, Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced the Senate will nonetheless return on November 15, then take a Thanksgiving break, then come back for more business on November 29, with no specified target date for adjournment.”

The Democrats are planning “one of the most significant lame-duck sessions in the history of the United States.”  The possible agenda includes climate change, increased taxes, and potentially any other items that could not be rammed through before the election.

The name of the John Fund article is, “You Vote, They Don’t Listen.”  That seems to be where we are right now.  

The only way to deal with this is to keep track of anyone who votes for any of this extreme legislation in the lame-duck session and to make sure that that person is voted out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.  Not only are the voters’ wishes being ignored, Congress has chosen to flaunt the fact that the will of the voters does not matter.  It is time to remind all of them who pays their salary.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an editorial entitled, “The Cabinet From Another World.”  I love the title. 

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has worked for the government all of her life.  She was part of Carter White House’s Office of Hispanic Affairs, Los Angles County insurance commissioner, served in the California Assembly and Senate, and then went to Washington, D. C. to represent California’s 32nd District.

After three years in the private sector, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner went to work in 1988 for the Treasury Department.  He worked for the International Monetary Fund from 2001 until 2003.  In 2003 he took over as President of the New York Federal Reserve.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was the governor of Washington from 1997 to 2005.  Prior to that he was a criminal prosecutor.  Later he served in the state legislature.  He did have limited private sector experience as a rainmaker for Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an international law firm from 2005 to 2009.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been in the public sector since 1987.  According to the article:

“…the Berkeley physicist is hostile to private enterprise to the point of blaming “free market forces” for not cutting carbon dioxide emissions.” 

President Obama has only one year of experience in the private sector (immediately after college graduation).  The American economy is not a place for on-the-job training.  I firmly believe that leadership comes down from the top.  If no one in the President’s Cabinet has ever run a business or has practical knowledge of how to run a business, chances are that the perspective of a businessman will not be represented in Cabinet meetings.  Businessmen are not evil–they are the backbone of the American economy.  Until those in the current administration begin to respect the contributions made by the average businessman, they will probably not be able to improve the economy.  They are simply looking in the wrong place.

On July 30, the Washington Examiner posted a list of some of the eithics charges against Charles Rangel.  The list included things that were unique to the House of Representatives ethics rules, but it also included things that are generally regarded as breaking the law.  The list included using official stationery to solicit funds for a New York college center named after him (obviously a House ethics issue), accepting favors and donations that could be seen to influence decisions in Congress (House ethics and possible corruption issue), a pattern of submitting financial statements that were incomplete and inaccurate (this is the man who is in charge of writing the tax code), misuse of a rent-subsidized apartment in New York City (I suspect he is not the only person guilty of that) and finally, failing to report rental income for a period of eight years (I strongly suggest you don’t try that one at home!).  As you look at this list, you could justifiably say that individually each item really doesn’t amount to much–he didn’t murder anyone and there are no bank robberies listed.  But what would happen to you or me if the IRS discovered that we had not reported income on a rental property for eight years?

Meanwhile, yesterday’s New York Post reported on Charlie Rangel’s 80th birthday party.  Congressman Rangel partied as if nothing were wrong.  Well, something is wrong.  As a Congressman, this man has shown a pattern of contempt for any law or ethics rule that would prevent him for doing something he wanted to do.  That in itself is more important than the specifics of the laws and rules broken.  One of the tenets of America is that all men are equal under the law.  The problem with Charlie Rangel is that he considers himself more equal than the rest of us.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air which cited a Pew Research Center claim that 8% of all American babies are born to illegal aliens. 

According to the article:

“Undocumented immigrants make up slightly more than 4% of the U.S. adult population. However, their babies represented twice that share, or 8%, of all births on U.S. soil in 2008, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center’s report.”

The lure of having your child declared an American citizen because they were born in America is powerful.  However, when you closely examine what the 14th Amendment actually says, the assumption that the children of illegal immigrants are automatically granted citizenship may not be correct.

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

“The 14th Amendment makes one condition in its language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  So far as I know, that has led courts to consider children born of legal immigrants citizens of the US, since they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of America and its laws. A case can be made that the clause could restrict birthright citizenship to only those legally in the country — and it would certainly be easier to float a test case with a deportation order than it would be to amend the Constitution.  Why not let the courts have a crack at it first?”

I would feel more comfortable with that idea if I trusted the courts, but actually, the courts have a better chance of dealing with this problem than an attempt at amending the Constitution.

Power Line reported yesterday:

“Two days ago, the Washington Times reported that the union that represents rank-and-file field agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unanimously passed a “vote of no confidence” for the agency’s leadership. The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 7,000 ICE agents and employees, stated that ICE has “abandoned” its core mission of protecting the public to support a political agenda favoring amnesty. The vote, by the Union’s Council, was 259-0.”

Aside from the fact that the mainstream media has not bothered to report on this, what does it mean?  The union denounced John Morton, head of the ICE, and Phyllis Coven, an assistant director in the office of detention policy and planning.  The union stated that public safety and the integrity of the agency would be better served without these two people.  The article lists a number of problems the unions have with the way that immigration law is currently being enforced (or not).

The article concludes:

“The Obama administration has been touting the fact that deportations of illegal aliens have increased by about 10 percent over what they were under President Bush. But according to the union, illegal immigrants now being held in state and local jails seek out ICE agents for deportation to avoid prosecution, conviction and prison terms. Criminal aliens, it says, “openly brag” that they are taking advantage of a broken immigration system and will be back in the United States within days to commit crimes — while U.S. citizens arrested for the same offenses serve prison sentences.”

I recently heard a speaker list the things that bring unity and security to a country.  They were–a common culture, a common language, and secure borders.  I can’t remember who the speaker was, but I agree with him and believe that secure borders are a matter of national security as well as the preservation of the country.

Yesterday’s USA Today posted a story about policymakers in Washington reconsidering how much the government should be doing to help people own their own homes.  I should explain that my husband and I bought our first house in 1969 with the help of a Veteran’s Administration loan.  Although I have been a homeowner for most of my life, I am very naive about the intricacies of buying a house or how that has changed over the past 70 years.

The article points out:

“…Freddie and Fannie, with their government backing, allowed the proliferation of 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages — a product that lenders would otherwise shun. Reason: Long-term, fixed-rate loans struggle in any interest rate scenario. If rates rise, banks are squeezed, because their revenue remains fixed even though they have to pay more for deposits and other funding. If rates fall, homeowners refinance. “No rational market participant is going to bear that risk,” Date says.

“Long-term fixed-rate mortgages make sense only if the government is absorbing some of the risk. Reforming housing finance, Date says, could jeopardize the future of long-term, fixed-rate mortgages or raise interest rates on them, perhaps a quarter to half a percentage point.”

I don’t necessarily agree with that statement.  Banks make money on thirty-year fixed rate loans.  The interest over time on those loans is at least twice the value of the house.  The fees banks charge for refinancing home loans vs the cost to the bank allow them to make a profit on the refinance.  I don’t begrudge them their profit, but I don’t believe the thirty-year mortgage is a bad product for the banks.

The article points out what the housing mark was like before World War II:

“…Banks demanded 50% down payments for mortgages that would last just five or six years; then, the homeowners would have to cough up the balance in a balloon payment. Homeownership remained mired around 40%.”

One of the conclusions of the article:

“High homeownership rates also impose economic costs. They lock workers into houses that can be tough to sell, especially in recessions, so it’s harder for them to move to find new jobs. The percentage of Americans changing addresses hit a record low 11.9% in 2008 before bouncing up a bit last year; the so-called moving rate exceeded 20% as recently as 1985.

“Florida has found that U.S. cities with high homeownership rates tend to lag behind other cities in job creation and earnings. He argues that the government should nudge the homeownership rate lower, perhaps to around 55%, by cutting the subsidies that prop it up.”

Again, I disagree.  One of the main things that props up home ownership is the tax deduction for mortgage interest.  Although that tax deduction is not what it used to be due to low interest rates, on a large mortgage it is significant, along with the fact that building equity in a house over a lifetime is a good thing.

Based on personal experience, I have a few comments.  My father was a returning World War II veteran.  A few years after returning from Europe, he and my mother bought a house in Levittown, New York–their first house–small houses built specifically to be affordable housing for returning veterans.  Because of the corporate structure in the 1950’s, by the time I entered sixth grade, I had attended five different elementary schools–as my father moved up the corporate ladder, we got transferred.  I am really not sure I would recommend that experience (although it helps me relate to the military branch of my family).  (I learned about the War Between the States in North Carolina in fifth grade, then learned about the Civil War in New Jersey in seventh grade!)

In my (humble?) opinion, the thirty-year mortgage would survive without government intervention.  Home ownership, because of current tax breaks, is a good thing right now.  If those tax breaks go away, it might be time to reconsider.  Also, generally speaking, over a lifetime of home ownership, equity will be built and some wealth acquired.  I am not an economist, but unless that changes, owning a home is a good thing.  I don’t think it makes sense to aim for a lower percentage of home ownership.  Most homeowners take pride in their homes and work to keep that investment in good shape.  Home ownership is part of being a responsible adult and meeting your obligations.  Maybe the problem is that our society has lost its sense of responsibility, not that the government is helping too many of us buy houses.

CBN News is reporting today that on Tuesday Rifqa Bary turned eighteen.  As you may recall from a previous RightWingGranny article, Rifqa was the subject of a lawsuit when she fled her parents home after converting to Christianity.  She publicly stated that because of her conversion, she feared for her life.

Rifqa Bary feared what is commonly termed an ‘honor killing.’  Under Muslim Sharia law, it is acceptable to kill a family member if they are believed to have brought disgrace upon the family.  Converting to Christianity would fall into that category.  Unfortunately, there has been an increase in honor killings in America in recent years.

The Daily Beast on June 8 of this year posted an article about honor killings in America.  Their post stated:

“Honor killings don’t only happen in the Middle East: The brutal Arizona killing last year of Noor Almaleki by her own father has catalyzed Human Rights Watch and Marie Claire magazine to join together in a campaign to renew the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which expired in 2008. Noor’s father, Faleh Almaleki, disapproved of her American lifestyle (wearing jeans, posting on MySpace) and dreams (marrying for love). He beat her and ultimately ran her over in his SUV, not once but twice, to prevent her from dishonoring the family, equating her with a “small fire” that needed to be extinguished in order to keep the family safe. He is in jail, awaiting trial for first-degree murder. “For an Iraqi, honor is the most valuable thing,” he said after his arrest. “No one messed up our life except Noor.” Noor’s mother supported him, saying, “You are not a criminal. I know how good-hearted and compassionate you are.””

I daresay that in the ‘American culture’ a man who ran over his daughter twice would not be considered good-hearted and compassionate.  If you follow the link to The Daily Beast, you will find a link to a Marie Claire article dealing with the rise of honor killings in America.

I have no idea how real the threat to Rifqa Bary is.  I do know that if the threat is real, our courts have an obligation to protect her in any way they can–restraining orders, etc.  I wish Ms. Bary a long, productive life lived outside the shadow of threats against her.  Happy Birthday, Rifqa.  May you celebrate many more.

The U.K. Guardian commented yesterday on Robert Gibbs’ remarks regarding the criticism of President Obama from the left. 

The article quotes an interview with The Hill where Robert Gibbs states:

“”I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

“The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.””

We don’t need to get too excited about what Robert Gibbs is saying.  The Obama Administration will need to move considerably toward the center of the political spectrum to be re-elected in 2012.  Moving away from the political left is a wise move at this point.  Elections are won in the center–20% of the left will always vote left, 20% of the right will always vote right, the campaign will be for the 60% that is somewhere between the two.  The remarks of Robert Gibbs are the beginning of the courting of those votes.  The liberal base that elected Barack Obama will not be voting for Republicans under any circumstances; therefore, (according to the Obama Administration) if alienating them will insure an election victory in 2012, let’s get on with it!

CBN News posted an Associated Press article today about progress being made on a museum to commemorate September 11th.  According to the article:

“The Sept. 11 museum is taking shape 70 feet below ground, a cavernous space that provides an emotionally raw journey and ends at bedrock where huge surviving remnants and spacial voids reveal the scale of the devastation of what once was the World Trade Center.”

The design of the museum will be defined by the slurry wall that kept the Hudson River from inundating the Financial District and by other huge artifacts.  The museum is scheduled to open in 2012. 

The article explains:

“Thousands of unidentified remains of 9/11 victims will be stored in the museum, in an area reserved for the medical examiner’s office; an adjacent room will be set aside for family members. These areas will be off limits to the public.”

I am grateful that the people in charge of this project are making an effort not only to remember those who died that day and respect their loved ones, but to illustrate for the rest of us the enormous size of the tragedy.

Like Pearl Harbor, this is a site that is hallowed ground and needs to be treated as such.

Yesterday at RightWingGranny I reported on the plan by Greg Gutfeld to open a gay bar next to the site of the proposed mosque at near Ground Zero.  Mr. Gutfeld says that he is serious about his plan and is beginning to raise funds for the project. 

An article at the Washington Examiner details the response from the group preparing to build the mosque:

“…That situation is worth savoring alone but then when you find out that Gutfeld managed to get a comment from the builders of the new Park51 mosque about his project.   Their response is reproduced below:

@greggutfeld  You’re free to open whatever you like.  If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog

Note to the people planning to building the mosque:  You’re free to build wherever you like.  If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Americans, you’re not going to build dialog!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the proposed mosque on Monday.  Mr. Morrissey’s article referenced an article written by Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Monday.  From what I understand, both authors are what we would call ‘moderate Muslims’ who do not embrace the practice of what they discribe as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The article in the Ottawa Citizen concludes:

“If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S.  We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America’s Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

“As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

“Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.”

The authors of the article in the Ottawa Citizen have no illusions about what radical Islam has done and is doing worldwide.  I just wish some of our elected officials were as willing to face the truth.