Fox News posted an article today about the State-Department-sponsored overseas tour by Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero. 

The article explains:

“The State Department confirmed Tuesday that the administration is sponsoring Feisal Abdul Rauf’s trip to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which is described as part of a program to send Muslims abroad to educate other countries about the role of religion in the United States. Rauf made similar trips during the Bush administration.”

This is not a good use of taxpayer money, regardless of whether or not it has been done before. 

The American Center for Law and Justice has said it will file a protest letter with the State Department demanding the government halt its sponsorship of the trip.

The article states:

“Rauf has emerged as a controversial figure because of his refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, which is how the U.S. government classifies the group. The imam told “60 Minutes” in 2001 that U.S. foreign policy could be considered an “accessory” to the 9/11 attacks, though he said in the same interview, “Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.””

I understand that the goal of the State Department is to bring harmony between America and other nations, but at some point we need to realize the characteristics of some of the people we are dealing with in the Muslim world.  There may be moderate, peace-loving Muslims, but there are also Muslims who kill doctors bringing sight to poor Afghanis and celebrate the act.  To deny that some of the people we are dealing with are not peace-living is naive at best and stupid at least. 

I resent the fact that my tax dollars are paying for this trip.  I have no doubt that Mr. Rauf will use this trip as a fund-raiser to finance his mosque.  The State Department has no business sponsoring this trip. 

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article on the progress of the latest stimulus bill. This week, the House of Representatives is taking a short break from their vacation to return to Washington to pass a $26 billion spending package partially intended to keep states from laying off teachers.  Critics are calling it a “bailout for teachers unions.”

In order to make the bill deficit neutral, the Senate version of the bill cuts $12 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (food stamps).  The cuts will begin in 2014.  Unfortunately, this is typical of the kind of thing the current Congress is doing.  The money for the teachers union is being spent now.  The cuts will not take effect until 2014.  By that time, people will have forgotten what the cuts were about and the money will be restored without an argument.  I am sure that somehow the Democrats will find a way to blame the Republicans for denying food stamps to hungry people.  Can you imaging trying to run your household budget that way?

The article states:

“(The bill)…includes no requirements that school districts balance their budgets or report on whether the money is making a measurable effect in the classroom.  Support for the bill has mainly been driven by the Federation for American Teachers, the largest group that represents teachers’ interests, which has donated more than $1.7 million to Democrats in 2010.”

There are better ways to run a government.  We need to remember that in November.

The question everyone is asking during ‘recovery summer’ is, “Where are the jobs?”  Well, an awful lot of them are in the federal government.  CNS News reported today on the findings of a Heritage Foundation study:

“The Heritage report also found that government jobs – in addition to being more lucrative – are almost impossible to lose. Despite a national unemployment rate that remained at 9.5 percent, federal employment has grown during the recession.
 
“”Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy,” the study documented. “Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000 – 12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.””

The study also found that:

“On average, federal employees earn 60 percent more than the average private sector employee – $79,000 vs. $50,000 respectively. Add in retirement and health care benefits and that gap grows to 85 percent.”

We have come to the point where it is time to start over.  Our federal government is out of control, and our Congressmen and Congresswomen are totally ignoring the voices of the people of America.  I firmly believe that if we do not elect a conservative-leaning Congress in November, we will not see unemployment rates drop below 8 per cent in the future.  There was a time when as Americans we did not have to pay a lot of attention to what our elected officials in Washington were doing.  Those days are gone.  Every American needs to be an informed voter and a government watchdog.  It’s time to step up to the plate.

We have all heard the varied opinions on building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.  The building that would contain the mosque is the building where the tail section of one of the jets fell on September 11.  Generally speaking, New Yorkers and Americans seem to oppose the mosque.  For some reason, our elected officials seem determined to allow the mosque to be built.  One of the latest wrinkles in the discussion is the revealing of the fact that the people who want to build the mosque do not yet own all of the land involved.  As we debate the sensitivity of building a mosque at this location, ask who is paying for the mosque, and wonder about the beliefs of the person who will lead the mosque, one New Yorker seems to have come up with an interesting approach to the whole debate.

Yesterday Hot Air reported that Greg Gutfeld has announced that he is seeking investors to open a gay bar in an available commercial location near the mosque to be built near Ground Zero. 

Mr. Gutfeld states:

“This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

“As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.”

If we are truly to be open-armed and tolerant in allowing this mosque to be built, should we not, in turn, expect tolerance from those people building it?  Massachusetts, where because of a court decision gay marriage is legal, drove Catholic adoption agencies from the state by forcing them to choose between one of the major tenets of their religion and keeping the agencies open.  The state required them to allow gay couples to adopt children, but because of the teachings of their church, they could not in good conscience comply with that law, and left the state.  Should we require the people building that mosque to allow homosexuals on their staff?  Will any laws regarding civil rights be applied to this mosque?

This could be an interesting development in the situation.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by Michael P. Fleischer, president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.   Mr. Fleischer explains why his is reluctant to expand his company and hire new people right now.

He explains the impact of the recently passed healthcare reform bill on his company:

“Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums–for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.”

He uses the example of an employee named Sally to illustrate the impact of government programs on his company:

“When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.”

He explains why he is not hiring right now:

“And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company’s vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

“A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government’s message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.”

If the Obama Administration truly wanted to see job growth, there would be no question about extending the Bush tax cuts–it would happen almost automatically.  As far as stating ‘the cost of the tax cuts’, we need to remember that the money being discussed belongs to the taxpayers–not the government.  Tax cuts DO NOT cost anything–they just put more money in the pockets of Americans.  If you want to argue that some Americans are more worthy than others to keep their own money, you may be living in the wrong country.

The source for this article is a Newsbusters article from June of this year.  Bill Press is a radio talk show host.  He is getting some press right now for his statements about Glenn Beck holding a rally at the LIncoln Memorial on the anniversary of the Martin Luther King, Jr., “I Have A Dream” speech.  Press wrote in a June 16 post of his blog, “If you ask me, that’s like granting al Qaeda permission to hold a rally on September 11 – at Ground Zero.  What the h___ were those bureaucrats at the Park Service thinking?”

Mr. Press overlooks the fact that the rally is a non-partisan event.  Glenn Beck’s website describes the event as follows:

“Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.

“Join the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and many more for this non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.

“Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation. On August, 28th, come join us in our pledge to restore honor at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.”

It seems to me that Glenn Beck has the same rights as any other American to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  Many Americans at this time are feeling the need to re-connect with the founding principles of our country.  It appears that those people who will attend this rally are a reflection of that feeling.

On January 29,2010, U. S. News & World Report posted an article by John Rother, the executive vice president for policy and strategy for AARP.  The article deals with the idea of means testing social security benefits.  Mr. Rother opposes the idea, as do I.

On one of the political analysis shows recently, I heard a panelist say, “Why should we pay social security to Warren Buffet?”  The ignorance of that question amazes me.  One of the things to remember in discussing tax policy is that whatever behavior is rewarded by tax programs will increase, whatever behavior is taxed heavily will decrease.  To place a means test on social security benefits is to tell people that they will be penalized for saving money and planning for retirement.  It is to say to people that even though money was taken out of their paychecks since they began working, that money would go to people who had been less responsible.

Why should we pay social security to Warren Buffet?  Because he has had money taken from him all his working life on the promise that it would be paid to him in retirement.  What are we saying about the trustworthiless of the American government if we break that promise?  Should we instead be looking at the Congressmen who have been robbing the Social Security fund since the 1960’s, when they opted out of Social Security and set up their own retirement fund.  Our tax dollars subsidize that fund and its generous retirement benefits, but oddly enough, Congress has never taken money out of their retirement fund and put it into the general treasury. 

In his article, Mr. Rother points out:

“Social Security’s enduring popularity reflects the insurance nature of the program: Recipients have an earned right to their retirement benefits. Everyone who pays into the program is entitled to benefits. If you work long enough in covered employment, you qualify, no matter where you stand on the income ladder. Almost everyone with a job has a personal stake in keeping the program strong. And let’s not forget the matter of fairness. Everyone who contributes through the payroll tax–including the affluent–deserves a fair return on his or her contributions. This expectation is not an exaggerated sense of entitlement. It’s reasonable.”

The government does not have the right to renege on the promise of Social Security.  The system does need to be revised to keep it solvent, but that should not involve penalizing people for planning ahead.

I would like to explain the scarcity of articles at right wing granny this weekend.  I have a new granddaughter, and my husband and I drove down to New York to see her.  She arrived on Tuesday and is grandchild number nine.  She is beautiful.  Her name is Gianna.  I will be back on my normal posting schedule tomorrow.

First of all, I would like to say that I love school teachers.  I raised one.  I also think that whatever kindergarten teachers are paid, it is not enough (that probably applies to high school and junior high school teachers as well).  I love little children, but the thought of more than one or two of them at a time is truly frightening to me.  That said, I will continue.

The Hill is reporting today that the House will be called back into session to pass the latest stimulus bill that provides $16 billion in extended Medicaid benefits and $10 billion in education funding for the states.  After the bill is passed, the unions plan to ramp up their efforts to support Democrats in the November election.  Since the money will prevent many union members from losing their jobs, the union strategy is to attack those Republicans that oppose the spending.

I need to make a note here about the bill.  The bill includes $16 billion in extended Medicaid benefits.  This is a down payment to the states to keep state budgets from collapsing under the weight of Obamacare.  Here is Massachusetts, we have already seen that government run healthcare results in financial and healthcare trends opposite than what was promised or expected (note:  expectations varied according to where you sit on the political spectrum).  The cost of health insurance has increased more quickly than in other parts of the country, people are dropping healthcare covereage because they cannot afford it, private healthcare companies are losing money (and if the trend continues, will no longer do business in this state), and lines in emergency lines are growing longer.

The article reports:

“”We are set to launch a robust field plan across the country during the month of August, including advertising and grassroots events,” said Gerry McEntee, president of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), in a statement. “We intend to highlight the clear choice Americans will make in November between Democrats who are working to protect jobs and move the economy forward and Republicans who are willing to wreck the economy for political gain.””

Why is spending $26 billion we do not have moving the economy forward? 

The article concludes:

“The United Steel Workers will also be active this month, said the union’s president, Leo Gerard.

“”During this recess, we will be ramping up our on-the-ground operations, especially in the heavy industrialized states where our membership is the strongest,” Gerard said. “Our objective is to make sure we define the choice between the likes of John Boehner and a Nancy Pelosi, between a Harry Reid and a Sharron Angle.””

The name of this website is right wing granny.  As right wing granny, I have to say that my choice might not agree with his.

As an American, I realize that America plays a major part in what happens around the world.  We have been a world leader since World War II.  However, everything that happens in the world is not necessarily related to anything we have done or are doing.  To assume that the world revolves around America is not only self-centered, it is stupid.

CNS News posted an article yesterday about the Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 at the U.S. Department of State, which was released this week. 

According to the article:

“Counterterrorism Coordinator Daniel Benjamin said that the Obama administration’s strategy to fight terrorism around the world includes determining America’s own role in possibly increasing the number of terrorists.” 

Note to Mr. Benjamin–terrorism has always existed.  It has been used against civilian populations during war ever since war has existed.  We have all heard stories of civilian populations being terrorized when a country is conquered.  Tyrannical governments have used forms of terrorism to control the populations they rule.  If you look at the way the Taliban treated the citizens of Afghanistan when they were in charge of the country, terrorism was really not a stretch for them.  There was little regard for innocent life, and there was no problem killing innocent people for a ‘greater cause.’ 

Isn’t the root of terrorism the idea of killing innocent people for a ‘greater cause?’  The logic of suicide attacks falls down when you try and figure out what they accomplish other than terror.  What did the blowing up of Flight 103 over Lockerbee, Scotland, actually accomplish?  It killed a lot of innocent people, saddened many families, and cost the world a lot of human potential, but what did it actually accomplish?  We need to understand that terrorism will exist regardless of what America does.  We are not capable of controlling or appeasing terrorists to the point where they will become peaceful world citizens.  It’s not about us.  The people who have websites to encourage terrorism enjoy some perverted sense of power when innocent people are killed in the name of their god.  You notice that the people who host these websites are not the people blowing themselves up.

The article concludes:

“The report also outlines the increasing radicalization of people in the United States, including U.S. citizens, and U.S. citizens abroad who are now actively planning and supporting terrorist attacks. Those include Anwar al-Aulaqi, who is linked to both Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people last year at Ft. Hood army base in Texas, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who tried to set off a bomb in a plane landing in Detroit, Mich., on Christmas Day.”

The problem with terrorists is not America–the problem with terrorists is terrorists.

Stroube Smith at the Washington Times posted an article yesterday about the sixty-fifth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.   Mr. Smith points out that Hiroshima was not a military target, but a civilian city. 

The article concludes:

“In the war’s aftermath, there was second-guessing as to whether Truman should have authorized the use of the bombs. In reality, he had no choice. No leader of a democracy could reject the use of a weapon that could save a single one of his people’s lives.

“Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan were staggering. Estimated losses from a campaign to take the first home island ranged from 300,000 to 1 million. The Army was ordering body bags and medical supplies and trying to find medics, nurses and doctors to deal with casualties of that magnitude.”

President Truman made a difficult decision that saved both American and Japanese lives in the end.  The atomic bombs on Hiroshim and Nagasaki destroyed cities and killed civilians, but they ended a war and actually reduced the number of casualties.  We have currently forgotten how to fight with all we have.  I am hoping we will remember how to wage war successfully sometime in the near future.

Yesterday the American Thinker posted an article yesterday about  USTOGAZA, the organization that is planning to launch a Gaza-bound ship named The Audacity of Hope that is intended to “break the blockade of Gaza.  They are hosting a fund-raising event in New York City.  Please follow the link above to the American Thinker article to see exactly who will attend the fundraiser.  The article was written by Lauri Regan and provides a lot of background as to who these people are and their past actions and associations.  It is sad to see the world’s media portraying Israel as the ‘bad guy’ here when Israel has treated the Arabs who live in her country better than her neighbors treat their own people.

Yesterday Bloomberg News reported that mortgage-finance company Fannie Mae has asked for $1.5 billion in aid from the U.S. Treasury Department after a 12th straight quarterly loss. 

According to the article:

“The Treasury seized Fannie Mae and McLean, Virginia-based Freddie Mac, the biggest sources of U.S. mortgage funding, in 2008 as souring subprime loans pushed the companies to brink of collapse. Including today’s request, Fannie Mae has drawn $86.1 billion in aid. The growing tally has helped spur the Obama administration to solicit proposals to fix the companies, and prompted some lawmakers to demand their closure.”

Fannie Mae issued many of the sub-prime mortgages that were one of the main causes of the housing bubble and the recession that has followed.

Meanwhile, The Washington Independent yesterday reported that a program initiated by the National Council of State Housing Agencies and Fannie Mae, the taxpayer-backed, government-sponsored enterprise that buys up mortgages from lending banks, will offer potential homeowners a mortgage with only $1,000 down, affordable monthly payments and no private mortgage insurance.  Here we go again.

The article points out:

“But there are concerns and problems intrinsic to purchasing a home with almost no money down. First and foremost, if the housing market turns down even a fractional amount, the homeowner will go “underwater” immediately. If the price of the house falls by even a bit, he will owe more on the mortgage than the house is worth. If he needs to sell it, he needs to come up with extra cash to pay the bank back. And the fact that the homeowner only had a thousand dollars to put down in the first place implies that he does not have much financial breathing room and might default.”

Have we not yet learned from our experiences???

I really don’t have a lot of respect for the ethics of the Obama Administration and the members of it.  Generally speaking, the actions of the people in the administration back up that feeling.

Byron York posted an article today at the Washington Examiner detailing a new process that is happening in civil rights lawsuits.  According to the article:

“In the past, when the Civil Rights Division filed suit against, say, a bank or a landlord, alleging discrimination in lending or rentals, the cases were ofter settled by the defendant paying a fine to the U.S. Treasure and agreeing to put aside a sum of money to compensate the alleged discrimination victims.  There was then a search for those victims–people who were actually denied a loan or an apartment–who stood to be conpensated.  After everyone who could be found was paid, there was often money left over.  That money was returned to the defendant.”

The artcle details recent changes in that procedure:

“Now, Attorney General Eric Holder and Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez have a new plan.  Any unspent money will not go back to the defendant but will instead go to a “qualified organization” approved by the Justice Department.  And if there is not enough unspent money–that will be determined by the Department–then the defendant might be required to come up with more money to give to the “qualified organization.””

Please follow the above link to the article and read the details of what is going on.  The good news in this is that Senator Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, is asking Eric Holder questions about exactly what is going on here.  So far Senator Grassley has not gotten an answer.  I am afraid we are seeing another example of the “Chicago shakedown” that has become the signature of the Obama Administration.

We are currently attempting to finish a war in Iraq and trying to win a war in Afghanistan.  Congress has the right to question the military leaders in charge of these wars as it is responsible for funding both wars.  Therefore, it was not a surprise to see General Petraeus, the former villain of the American left, now a hero of the left, being questioned in Congress.  What was surprising, however, was the direction of the questions from one Congresswoman.

YouTube posted a video taken in June of this year of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords expressing her concern to General Petraeus as to ‘how green our war effort in Afghanistan was.’  While I appreciate her concern for the environment, I really wonder if that is a valid line of questioning when American soldiers are at risk.  One of the impressive things about the video is the amazing manners of General Petraeus.  He handles the question honestly and respectfully.

In another Congressional oversight hearing in April, Congressman Hank Johnson, commenting on the influx of an additional 8,000 American troops in Guam, told the gathered members of Congress and military officials, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.”  Admiral Willard, who was being questioned by the Congressional Committe managed to keep a straight face as he stated, “We don’t anticipate that.” 

As a close relative of a military officer currently on active duty, I have met a lot of our current military.  I have been thoroughly impressed by the character, dedication, poise, intelligence, and manners of our armed forces.  Needless to say, the Congressional committees that periodically question them are lacking in many of these traits. 

This is from the website SpendingRevolt.com.  It says it all.

Yesterday’s Kansas City Star posted an Associated Press article detailing the results of the election held in that state. 

According to the article:

“About 71 percent of Missouri voters backed a ballot measure, Proposition C, that would prohibit the government from requiring people to have health insurance or from penalizing them for not having it.

“The Missouri law conflicts with a federal requirement that most people have health insurance or face penalies starting in 2014.”

There are some real questions as to the actual value of the vote (federal law trumps state law), but the vote is an indication of public opinion on Obamacare. 

I live in Massachusetts, where a state healthcare reform law went into effect in 2006.  This state health insurance reform was said to be one of the models for Obamacare.  Well, the results have been mixed at best.  There was a letter to the editor in my local paper yesterday from a Massachusetts couple stating that their monthly cost for the wife’s health insurance has increased $50 a month.  The couple is planning to cancel their health insurance at the end of August because they cannot afford to pay the increase.  Since the passage of the state health insurance reform, Massachusetts health insurance rates have increased rapidly.  The governor recently turned down requests from major health insurance providers for rate increases that would cover their increased expenses caused by the reform. 

In addition Dark Daily reports:

“In May, the four largest health insurers in Massachusetts reported first quarter losses that reached a total of $150 million. Three of these insurers drew down reserves. For example, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, which is the largest health insurer in the state, reported a quarterly loss of $65.2 million, along with an operating loss of $95.5 million. It drew down its operating reserve by $55 million to handle those losses, as well as losses anticipated to occur during the second quarter of 2010.”

The article at Dark Daily also points out that small employers in Massachusetts are beginning to drop health insurance coverage of employees and paying the penalty to the state instead.  The state will collect money under that arrangement, but there are no guarantees that the money collected would be spent in any way that would benefit or support healthcare.  That is ultimately the direction in which Obamacare will lead us.

Yesterday’s Investors.com reported on two recent events in Virginia.  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has pursued two legal cases recently that are important to the entire country.  Attorney General Cuccinelli (along with Attorney Generals from several other states)has filed a lawsuit challenging the medical overhaul passed in March.  On Monday, Virginia federal Judge Henry Hudson ruled that Virginia’s suit had merit and could proceed, dismissing a motion by Health and Human Services to have it thrown out.  The second case has to do with the role of policemen in Virginia in dealing with criminals who are here illegally.

The article points out:

“Cuccinelli has issued a legal opinion that says Virginia police are allowed under the law to check the immigration status of those encountered in the course of normal police work. “It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested,” he wrote.

“He believes states have a right to enforce federal immigration laws as much as they have a right and duty to enforce federal speed limits. The lives and safety of their citizens are at stake, and splitting constitutional hairs does not keep people from being raped, robbed and killed by other people who just should not be here.”

Virginia has an Attorney General who sees protecting the rights of the citizens of his state as part of his responsibility.  If only Massachusetts…

Originally the mosque to be built near Ground Zero was to be called the Cordoba Initiative/American Society for Muslim Advancement mosque and community center.  That sounds pretty harmless until you take a closer look at the role of Cordoba in Muslim history.  Cordoba is a city in Spain (called Andalusia by the Muslims) which was captured by Muslims in 716 and became the capital of their caliphate in that area.  The city was freed, recaptured and finally freed in 1236.   Cordoba represents a Muslim caliphate.  The history of Muslim conquest is that they win a victory in battle and erect a mosque.  If you remember the celebrations by Palestinians and some Muslims on September 11, you understand that the successful attack on the World Trade Center is considered a victory by radical Islam.  That is one of the reasons they would like to build a mosque there rather than in another part of New York City.  Just for the record, there are many non-radical Muslims who were horrified by the events of that day.

There are some serious questions regarding the funding of this mosque as well as the appropriateness of the location.

Today’s New York Post reports:

“The Anti-Defamation League, the nation’s leading Jewish rights group, came out last week against the mosque and Islamic community center.

“”Some legitimate questions have been raised [about possible ties to] “groups whose ideologies stand in contradiction to our shared values,” the group said.

“”Ultimately, this is not a question of rights but a question of what is right,” it added.  “In our judgement, building an Islamic center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause Some victims more pain unnecessarily, and that is not right.”

“Families of 9/11 victims have also protested the plan over the past year.”

According to the concept of Freedom of Religion which is a basis of our Constitution, the Muslims have every right to build their mosque at Ground Zero.  However, if their true intention is to encourage tolerance and understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims, they will not continue with their plans.

Today’s Wall Street Journal points out:

“…how is it that the planners, who have presented this effort as a grand design for the advancement of healing and interfaith understanding, have refused all consideration of the impact such a center will have near Ground Zero? Why have they insisted, despite intense resistance, on making the center an assertive presence in this place of haunted memory? It is an insistence that calls to mind the Flying Imams, whose ostentatious prayers–apparently designed to call attention to themselves on a U.S. Airways flight to Phoenix in November 2006–ended in a lawsuit. The imams sued. The airlines paid.

“Dr. Zuhdi Jasser–devout Muslim, physician, former U.S. Navy lieutenant commander and founder of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy–says there is every reason to investigate the center’s funding under the circumstances. Of the mosque so near the site of the 9/11 attacks, he notes “It will certainly be seen as a victory for political Islam.”

“The center may be built where planned. But it will not go easy or without consequence to the politicians intent on jamming the project down the public throat, in the name of principle. Liberal piety may have met its match in the raw memory of 9/11, and in citizens who have come to know pure demagoguery when they hear it. They have had, of late, plenty of practice.”

Just because the building of this mosque may be legal, that doesn’t make it right.

Hot Air posted an article Sunday about the Chevy Volt.  The Volt is Chevy’s new electric car that sells for $41,000.  The article states, “However, with federal subsidies, you could pay as little as $33,500.”   Is it time to ask, “Who pays for federal subsidies?”

To give you an idea of how well the government runs business, the article explains:

“Almost four hundred million dollars in federal subsidies were pumped directly into the design and production of the Volt.  The initial production run consists of just ten thousand units, with 45,000 more planned for 2012 if sales are good.  This would add just over $7200 more in taxpayer subsidies to each Volt produced over the next two years.  Since 2012 production will be scaled back if early sales are disappointing, it might be more logical to add the subsidies to the first 10,000 units only, which would leave early adopters outside of California paying $33,500 for a car which actually costs $81,000 per unit, with taxpayers picking up the remainder.  It’s actually even worse than that, because GM expects to lose money on every Volt sale.  Those losses will be spread among other GM products, or perhaps wiped out with further taxpayer subsidies.”

The article concludes:

“The number of Chevy Volts desired by those free people is zero.  By government decree, there will be up to 55,000 of them gathering dust in the far corners of three-car garages by 2012.  The government didn’t subsidize this boondoggle.  The “government” doesn’t subsidize anything.  You do.Imagine what  the taxpayers of America might have done with the billions taken away from them to produce those cars, divide that lost value by 55,000, and you will begin to comprehend the true cost of a Chevy Volt.”

In the attempt to produce a ‘green car’, the government has again misspent large sums of taxpayer money.  The fact that the car will sell for slightly less than half of what it cost to make it is typical of a government business decision.  The Obama Administration has very few people in it who have business experience.  They need to leave the running of businesses to the people who know how to run them.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported:

“Judge Henry Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia today denied the motion by the U.S. Department of Justice that Virginia’s challenge of the constitutionality of Obamacare be dismissed.”

This is the first of many challenges to Obamacare.  Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli filed the case on the basis that the requirement that every American purchase a government-approved health insurance policy exceeds the government’s authority under the Commerce clause of the Constitution.

The article concludes:

“Specifically, the Court wrote that ‘[n]o reported case from any federal appellate court has extended the Commerce Clause or Tax Clause to include the regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product, notwithstanding its effect on interstate commerce.'”

“The Virginia AG added that “this lawsuit is not about health care, it’s about our freedom and about standing up and calling on the federal government to follow the ultimate law of the land–the Constitution”

“For that reason, he said, “the government cannot draft an unwilling citizen into commerce just so it can regulate him under the Commerce Clause.”

“A summary judgment hearing is scheduled for October 18.”

This is a case that will impact the freedom of every American.  It will also indicate whether or not we are still a country governed by our Constitution.  It is a very important case.  We need a new Congress that will REPEAL AND REPLACE this horrible law, but we also need to make sure an unconstitutional healthcare bill cannot be passed in the future.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article entitled, “Finger-Pointing Reaches Sell-By Date.”  Pollster Scott Rasmussen has been asking voters who is responsible for America’s economic problems since May 2009.  The poll released yesterday found that 47% of Americans blame George Bush for the bad economy, and 48% blame President Obama. 

Mr. Hinderaker points out:

“Actually, though, that headline is misleading. The body of the story indicates that the choice (as in prior polls) was between “Obama’s policies” and “the recession that began under Bush.” So not all though who voted “Bush” blamed the recession on his administration’s policies.”

The article concludes:

“One more notable point: here, as on nearly every issue, there is a big divide between “mainstream Americans” and the “political class.” Sixty-one percent of mainstream Americans blame the policies of the Obama administration over the recession he inherited, while 87 percent of the political class blame Bush. That’s convenient, of course. A final populist touch: 62 percent of likely voters trust their own judgment more than Obama’s on economic issues. Makes it hard to exert a whole lot of leadership.”

I don’t know if there is something in the air or water in Washington, D. C., but our representatives and elected officials no longer represent us.  It’s time for the voters to pick up their ‘broom’ and vote everyone out of office who is not representing them.  When bills are passed over the objections of more than half of the American people, we don’t need to educate the American people–we need a new Congress and a new President.  We can’t vote out the President until 2012, but we can change Congress.  Make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right!

There are two sources for this article–an article by Republican Congressman Mike Pence at Townhall.com and an article by Larry Kudlow in yesterday’s National Review Online.

Larry Kudlow points out that the numbers show that tax cuts are not the cause of our current financial crisis.  He reminds us that  in the ’80s and ’90s, during the Reagan and Clinton Administrations, the debt-to-GDP ratio averaged around 40 percent.  Mr. Kudlow states, “During those years government debt held by the public did increase $2.4 trillion.  But household wealth jumped $32 trillion.”

The problem is not the tax cuts–the problem is the spending.  Mr. Kudlow reminds us:

“And let’s not forget that tax rates are coming down around the world, both for individuals and businesses. High tax rates in the U.S. will cause us to lose the global race for capital. At some point the question of taxes is really an issue of economic freedom. Let people keep more of what they earn. Marginal tax rates produce huge incentive effects for work, investment, and risk. Higher tax rates undermine economic growth and entrepreneurship. So let’s go for tax reform, with flatter rates and a broader base that gets rid of unnecessary deductions, credits, exemptions, loopholes, and special-interest subsidies.”

Congressman Pence tells us that the small business owners in America face the highest tax increase in history on January 1, 2011.  These tax increases kick-in automatically if the Bush tax cuts expire. 

Congressman Pence states:

“America’s private sector has suffered enough for the past 18 months under the failed economic policies of the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats. Nearly 15 million Americans are out of work and unemployment hovers near a heartbreaking 10 percent. The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) reported that optimism among small businesses “is dismal, capital expenditures are at 35-year lows and small businesses are still cutting more jobs than they are adding.” The NFIB also said that Congress must act quickly to ensure no tax increases for business owners in January.”

Congressman Pence states, “That’s why House Republicans are determined to fight this tax increase with everything we’ve got. We’ve been hearing from the American people at AmericaSpeakingOut.com and we understand that the problem is not that Washington doesn’t tax enough. The problem is that Washington spends too much, and the solution is leadership in Congress that will make the hard choices and sacrifices necessary to rein in spending.”  

Tax cuts are not the problem–spending is the problem.  It’s time to take the credit card away from our current Congress.  Check voting records of your Congressmen before you vote in November.  If your Congressmen have been spending wildly, replace them with new Congressmen who understand that they will be voted out of office if they continue in that direction.

The Obama Administration has attacked Fox News on numerous occasions.  In October, Fox News reported on an effort by the White House to prevent Fox News from being included in news interviews of “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg. 

In case you have forgotten:

“The Treasury Department on Thursday tried to make “pay czar” Kenneth Feinberg available for interviews to every member of the network pool except Fox News. The pool is the five-network rotation that for decades has shared the costs and duties of daily coverage of the presidency and other Washington institutions.” 

This effort was unsuccessful.  The Washington bureau chiefs of the five TV networks decided that none of them would interview Kenneth Feinberg unless Fox was included.  They stood up for the freedom of the press and refused to be bullied into excluding Fox News. 

The President has made numerous comments ragarding Fox News during his time in office, but the network’s ratings keep rising, and the organization is respected by its colleagues.

Yesterday, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported that Fox News will be moving to the front row of the White House briefing room.  Helen Thomas’ former seat (front row center) will go to Associated Press, and Fox News will get Associated Press’ current front row seat.  These seating changes were voted on unanimously by The White House Correspondents Association.

Congratulations to Major Garrett, who covers the White House for Fox News.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I in danger of becoming one, so there are aspects of this story I do not claim to understand; however, I am posting it because I think it is important.

Yesterday at National Review Online‘s healthcare blog, John R. Graham posted an article about the impact of two recent decisions in Massachusetts regarding gay marriage on the healthcare debate.  Huh? 

According to the article:

“In the first case, concerning benefits of federal employees, Judge Tauro decided that DOMA was unconstitutional on the grounds that it had no rational basis, and that it violated the equal-protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, the federal government’s denying benefits to homosexual employees’ partners was invalid.”

“In the second case, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts alleged that DOMA invaded its power to define marriage, because it conditioned the transfer of federal funds to the Commonwealth on a particular definition of marriage. (The examples were federal funding of MassHealth, the Commonwealth’s Medicaid program, and veterans’ cemeteries owned by the Commonwealth.)  Furthermore, the Commonwealth asserted that the U.S. imposed an undue administrative burden on its personnel policies, because the Commonwealth recognized homosexual couples as married but had to deduct their Social Security and Medicare taxes as single persons. In this case, Judge Tauro decided that DOMA violated the equal-protection clause, as well as the Tenth Amendment.”

This is getting interesting.  This is the equivalent of striking down the Arizona immigration law while letting the sanctuary cities stand.  (At the moment that is actually true!)  The argument being made in Massachusetts is that because there is not an enumerated power in the Constitution to define marriage, the states have control of marriage–not the federal government.  As far as I know, there is not an enumerated power in the Constitution to force people to buy health insurance.  Hmmm.

The article concludes:

“Judge Tauro found that state law trumps federal law even in cases of benefits to federal employees or federal funding of state benefits. Imagine if a state could overturn Obamacare’s mandate to buy health insurance, but keep the federal subsidies for the health-insurance exchanges! That would shake things up.

“After that? Repeal and replace.”

I have no idea how this will turn out, but it is ironic that a judge defending gay marriage may provide the basis for lawsuits by the states against Obamacare.