Yesterday the Washington Times posted an article on the construction now going on at Ground Zero in New York City. 

The article reports:

“This Sept. 11, the 10th anniversary of the terrorist attacks upon America, New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will dedicate the massive, $600 million National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center.  What Americans have not been told is that this “memorial” will remake Ground Zero so that it does not acknowledge 9/11.”

Amazing. 

The article goes on:

“Replacing all reminders of the attacks will be two immense “voids” with gigantic subterranean waterfalls designed to express exclusively, as per architect Michael Arad, the continuing “absence in our lives caused by these deaths.”

“About 500 trees will be planted upon the site. They are, we are told by memorial officials, “traditional symbols of the rejuvenation of life.” They also will eradicate all trace and memory of what stood there for 30 years and its destruction on Sept. 11.”

Wow.  It gets even more amazing when you realize that they are building all these fountains and no restrooms (rightwinggranny.com) as reported on May 22.  The part of the facility that includes the bathrooms will open on the fall of 2012.  That’s an awfully long time to wait for a bathroom.

An example of some of the omissions at the Ground Zero memorial:

“The National September 11 Memorial at the WTC will not include the iconic WTC “Sphere” – again, exactly because it is iconic. “The Sphere” stood in the center of the WTC plaza for 30 years as a symbol of world peace. On 9/11, though badly damaged (a piece of one of the planes tore through it) it survived the attacks in place and was embraced by many Americans as a symbol of the nation’s strength and resiliency.

“That is why it cannot be returned.

“It sits at Battery Park, about a half-mile from Ground Zero, where it was installed March 11, 2002, the six-month anniversary of the attacks, as a “temporary” memorial. Battery Park is undergoing its own renovations, and “The Sphere” will have to moved.

“One 9/11 anniversary at Ground Zero, Mr. Arad told me that returning “The Sphere” would be “didactic.” That is, it would tell us what to think.

“Somehow disposing of it is not telling us what to think.

“This is like banishing the USS Arizona from the USS Arizona memorial.” 

I am sure that many Americans will visit this memorial once, but as word gets out as to what was done here and the political correctness involved, fewer people will actually be interested in going.  That is a shame.  Those who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, deserve better than this.

On Wednesday, Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted an opinion piece on the Obama administration’s current policy of dealing with captured terrorists. 

According to Mr. Thiessen, last week Vice Adm. William McRaven stated in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“…that the Obama administration has no clear plan for handling captured terrorist leaders if they are caught alive outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq. McRaven testified that that “in many cases” suspects captured in secret are taken to a U.S. Navy ship until they can be tried in a U.S. court or transferred to the custody of an allied country, but if neither option is feasible, he said, the terrorist is let go. “If we can’t do either one of those, then we will release that individual,” McRaven told the committee.”

Yes, you read that right.  The Vice Admiral testified that American forces have been letting captured terrorists go rather than continue the Bush policy of sending the terrorists to Guantanamo. 

Mr. Thiessen concludes:

“Until now, it was believed that the administration was not capturing senior terrorists alive outside the war zones of Afghanistan and Iraq, but simply killing them. Last year, The Post reported that there had been no known high-value detentions by the United States since Obama took office. Now, it appears, we have indeed been capturing such terrorists — and setting them free. If so, this is an outrage. With Adm. McRaven’s testimony, and today’s news, the administration owes the American people — and the United States Congress — some answers, and fast.”

This may be politically expedient–but it is strategically stupid.  Terrorists commit terrorism.  Why in the world would our military even consider turning them loose?  If this is the current policy, it shows not only a total disregard for the safety of the American people, it also shows a total disregard for the lives of the soldiers overseas.  This is the sort of policy that causes America’s enemies to view us as a paper tiger.  The policy needs to be brought to the public’s attention and changed quickly.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article on the United Nations initiative Agenda 21.  I posted a story about an executive order signed by President Obama that will facilitate the implementation of this program in the United States (see rightwinggranny.com on June 15th).  Now the Tea Party is sounding the alarm about what Agenda 21 will do to freedom and national sovereignty of America. 

The article at the Daily Caller reports:

“”This is as vast, complicated issue that invades every corner of our lives. Al Gore promised us a ‘wrenching transformation’ of our society — this is it,” DeWeese (American Policy Center president Tom DeWeese) told TheDC. “What we are fighting is a move toward top down control-the exact opposite if the system America started with. Special interests, NGOs [Non-governmental organizations], and quasi official government groups like the American Planning Association are descending on local government and changing it through the establishment of non-elected boards, councils and regional governments. They don’t answer to the people.””

“Congress has never approved the implementation of Agenda 21, though Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and George H.W. Bush all signed executive orders to implement it.”

So far, this program is under the radar, but it needs to be brought to the attention of the American people.

The thing to keep in mind here is that the United Nations, like all bureaucracies, seeks to expand its power and control.  The idea of one world government is not alien to the United Nations at this point.  When the United Nations began, the freedom-loving countries held the power.  That is no longer true.  The largest power bloc in the United Nations at this time is the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC), a fifty-seven state group whose goal is the establishment of a world-wide caliphate governed by Sharia Law.  Although Agenda 21 does not seem to move in that direction, it does move in the direction of abolishing national sovereignty, which could create enough chaos for anything to happen.

On Tuesday Newsbusters posted a rather long article on the debt ceiling, treasury bonds and how government spending and interest payments work.  I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article, but I will try to summarize some of it here.

The article lists the monthly interest payments on our debt so far this year and points out that interest is by far the greatest monthly expense associated with our debt.  If we continue to make those payments, our debt remains in good standing.

The article then lists our monthly tax receipts and points out that those receipts far exceed our monthly interest payments.  The article reports that in fiscal 2011 we have made interest payments of $275 billion and taken in revenues of $1.48 trillion.

The article posts graphs of treasury bills and stock prices indicating that the financial markets are not overly concerned about the debt ceiling. 

The article concludes:

“Consider that last August, we brought in $164 billion in receipts. As it should be equal to or greater than that this year, we will easily afford the roughly $35 billion of interest expense without raising the debt ceiling.

“Our monthly Social Security and Medicare outlays in May were $51 billion. Assuming they’re close to the same in August, we’d still be left with $78 billion to pay military members, and a variety of other things.

“Will we have enough to meet all of our obligations?

“Certainly not. Like what’s happened in the past, many government employees and contractors would be given IOUs.

“BUT, unlike what the Obama-loving media are telling people, we won’t have to default on our debt, we won’t have to forego payments to America’s seniors, and we won’t have to hold back the salaries of our military members in the field.

“Just imagine how much different this debate would be if our press were actually presenting the truth to the people rather than the hysteria-driving nonsense that’s been on display of late.”

What we are currently seeing in regard to the debt ceiling is political theatre orchestrated by the Obama administration and cheered along by the media.  We need to ignore it and watch what is actually going on in regard to the runaway spending of this administration.

Fox News reported on Tuesday that a Somali member of an Al Qaeda-linked group was captured and held on the USS Boxer of the coast of Africa while he was interrogated.

The article reports:

“Ahmed Abdulkadir Warsame, in his mid-twenties, was interrogated “extensively” and for “some time” by military personnel and he provided useful intelligence, according to one source.  He was advised of his Miranda rights at the time, according to an administration official, but U. S. law enforcement were ultimately able to interview him, and he continued to offer useful information, according to administration officials.”

A federal grand jury in New York State has indicted him, and he is expected to be tried there in a civilian trial (given all the rights of an American citizen)

The Washington Times posted an editorial on this story yesterday, commenting:

“The Warsame indictment is an end run around Congress, which last year voted to bar the transfer of terrorist detainees to the United States for trial or any other purpose. The 2011 National Defense Authorization Act stipulated that no Department of Defense funds “may be used to transfer, release, or assist in the transfer or release to or within the United States, its territories, or possessions” any detainee who “is not a United States citizen or a member of the Armed Forces of the United States” and was held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In his Jan. 7 signing statement, Mr. Obama called the restrictions “a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority to determine when and where to prosecute Guantanamo detainees, based on the facts and the circumstances of each case and our national security interests” and maintained that the “prosecution of terrorists in Federal court is a powerful tool in our efforts to protect the Nation and must be among the options available to us.” He pledged that his administration would “work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions” and “seek to mitigate their effects.””

Just for some perspective, this is how we handled this sort of thing in World War II:

“During World War II, eight Germans landed on our shores in 1942 bent on sabotage. Caught before they could carry out their missions, under FDR’s presidential proclamation they were hauled before a secret military tribunal and found guilty. Meeting in an emergency session, the Supreme Court upheld the tribunal’s authority. Justice was swift: six of the men were put to death–a sentence much more harsh than would have been allowed in a civil trial.”

The above quote is from a book review by the University Press of Kansas of Louis Fisher’s book NAZI SABOTEURS ON TRIAL.  Even though Mr. Fisher wrote the book to express his opinion that what was done in that case was wrong, the fact remains that the saboteurs were dealt with quickly and effectively.

We are at war.  There are people in the world who would like to destroy American freedom and our way of life.  We can do what is necessary to protect and preserve our freedom or we can become the laughing stock of the world because we protect the people who have stated they want to destroy us.  As Americans, we make that decision.  Our elections need to reflect what we believe regarding terrorism and the safety of America.  I’m not sure our current elected officials understand the need to protect our country.

The Daily Caller reported today on secret testimony given by acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson about the involvement of the ATF in selling guns to Mexican drug cartels. 

The article reports:

“One key takeaway from the meeting was that Melson acknowledged to investigators that agents had witnessed transfers of weapons from straw purchasers to third parties without following the guns afterwards. Straw purchasers are people who could technically legally buy guns in the U.S. but their intent was to turn around and sell them to drug cartels in Mexico.

“Another point Melson clarified for investigators was that the ATF group carrying out the mission of Operation Fast and Furious was placed under the direction of the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s office. The U.S. Attorney in Arizona, Dennis Burke, is a political appointee of the Obama administration.”

The article further details the lack of cooperation by the Department of Justice with the Congressional investigation into Operation Fast and Furious.  It is also interesting that Mr. Melson reported that he and other senior ATF officials were asked to reassign every major official involved in Operation Fast and Furious. 

The article concluded:

“Melson also confirmed many suspicions Issa and Grassley had of the existence of documents and other evidence in Justice Department possession. The Republican members called on Holder to be more transparent and honest in responses to their requests for information, and that DOJ officials should be informed of their right to communicate with Congressional committees without Holder’s oversight.

“”We hope that the Department will take a much more candid and forthcoming approach in addressing these very serious matters with the Committee,” Issa and Grassley wrote. “If other important fact witnesses like Mr. Melson have a desire to communicate directly with the Committees they should be informed that they are free to do so. They should also be notified that if they are represented by personal counsel, they may appear with personal counsel rather than with Department lawyers.””

I hope Congress will hold the Justice Department accountable for the incredibly bad judgment they exercised in going forward with Operation Fast and Furious.  Americans deserve an explanation of what happened and those responsible need to be fired.

Tony the Tiger was born in1952 as the mascot for Kellogg’s frosted flakes.  He has been there since I was a young child.  I love Tony the Tiger.  I also don’t eat frosted flakes.  There is nothing wrong with them, I just like other things.  Obviously, Tony the Tiger has not had a major impact of my eating habits.  I also doubt that he has had a major impact on the eating habits of my children and grandchildren.  So why in the world is the Federal Trade Commission getting ready to kill Tony the Tiger (what would PETA say?)?

On Friday, CNS News reported that the Federal Trade Commission is defending its proposals to change food and beverage marketing to children ages 2-17, which industry and legal critics say would lead to the end of iconic commercial characters such Tony the Tiger and Toucan Sam and create free speech issues.

The article reports:

“The interagency report is intended to help the food industry determine which items are “appropriate and desirable to market to children to encourage a healthful diet.” The group’s report says that by the year 2016, “all food products within the categories most heavily marketed directly to children should meet two basic nutrition principles. Such foods should be formulated to: (A) make a meaningful contribution to a healthful diet; and (B) minimize the content of nutrients that could have a negative impact on health and weight.”

“Vladeck ( David Vladeck, director of the bureau of consumer protection for the FTC) said the government is not trying to ban Toucan Sam. However, he said the interagency group would hope to see sugary children’s cereals change their formula.”

The Federal Government does not have the right to tell (or even encourage) a company to alter its product.  Sugar frosted flakes have been in existence for almost sixty years; the obesity problem in America has not existed for sixty years; why are we placing the blame on a product, rather than a behavior?  Not every obese person is obese because of their eating habits, but many are.  Killing Tony the Tiger will not change those eating habits.  Tony the Tiger did not cause overeating, and Tony the Tiger will not cure it.  Why are we wasting government money on this nonsense?

Friday before the Fourth of July is a great time to release news–people are engrossed in making their holiday plans and might not notice.  I have previously reported on one of the stories released Friday–the lack of stimulus in the stimulus program, but there was another piece of news released on Friday–the growth and salaries of President Obama’s staff. 

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that President Obama’s 454 White House aides will make a total salary of $37,121,463 this year.  About that shared sacrifice…

The current salary paid to White House aides represents an increase of nearly $4 million from 2008, the last year of President George W. Bush’s term.  It also incudes an increase of seven staff members. 

It seems as if the Los Angeles Times is not too impressed with this news, the article reports:

“Because Americans would no doubt be pleased to know of the Obama staff’s economic success amid the bleak national scene for so many others, we saved the information for today, when most Americans who are still employed are back at their own jobs and can share the joy.

“The 2011 White House salary report does not include mention of the 41 unidentified Obama staff members who owe the Internal Revenue Service $831,000 in back taxes. That report came out last fall…”

I hope the voters remember this next November.

The Weekly Standard posted a story on Sunday about the actual impact of the government stimulus program.  The program cost $666 billion and is said to have created or saved just under 2.4 million private or public jobs.  That amounts to a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job. 

The aricle points out:

“Furthermore, the council (White House’s Council of Economic Advisors) reports that, as of two quarters ago, the “stimulus” had added or saved just under 2.7 million jobs — or 288,000 more than it has now.  In other words, over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the “stimulus” than it has with it. In comparison to how things would otherwise have been, the “stimulus” has been working in reverse over the past six months, causing the economy to shed jobs.”

This seems to be an awful lot of money spent on something that did not work.  And we still have to pay back the money! 

The article points out that at the end of 2008, when President Obama was about to take office, the national debt was $9.986 trillion.  The national debt is now $14,467 trillion and climbing.  It is definitely time to cut spending! 

We are all influenced by the way the media tells a story–whether the telling is accurate or not.  Most of us have a tendency to accept what we hear.  I am often guilty of that.  I have heard a lot of stories about the “right of return” and the role it plays in the negotiations for a Palestinian State, but I must admit the following story is an angle I have never considered.

Steven Plaut posted a story at Front Page Magazine which asks the question, “What if the Tories who supported the British during the American Revolution had been treated by Britain the way the Arab countries have treated the Palestinians?”

The article points out:

“Like all wars of independence, both the Israeli and American wars were in fact civil wars. In both cases, religious sectarianism played an important role in defining the opposing forces, although for Americans, taxation was even more important. (Israelis suffered under abominable taxation only after independence.) Among the causes of the American Revolution was the attempt to establish the Anglican Church, or Church of England, as the official bishopric of the colonies. Anglicans were the largest ethnic group opposing independence in the 1770s, as were Palestinian Muslims in the 1940s, although in both cases, other religious/ethnic groups were also represented in the anti-independence movement.”

The story continues:

“In both the Israeli and American wars for independence, anti-independence refugees fled the country in order to live in areas under the control of their political allies. Many who opposed independence nevertheless stayed put. After the wars ended, these people generally found the devil was not as bad as they had feared, and were permitted to live as tolerated political minorities with civil rights. (This in spite of the fact that many refused to recognize the legitimacy of the new states, sometimes for decades.)”

Then the similarities between the two groups begins to break down:

“The Tory refugees were regarded by all as the problem of Britain. The American patriots allowed small numbers to return. Others attempted to return illegally and were killed. But most languished across the partition lines in eastern British Canada, mainly in what would become Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The refugees would never be granted the “right to return.” In most cases, they would never even be granted compensation for property; Benjamin Franklin was among the leading opponents of any such compensation.

“At this point, the similarity between the Palestinian refugees and the Tory Loyalists breaks down. The British, unlike the Arabs, did a great deal to settle their refugees, rather than force them into festering camps, and allotted $20 million for their resettlement. The Tory refugees quickly became a non-problem, and never played any subsequent role in British-American relations.”

Please follow the above link to the article and read the rest of the story.  We have forgotten how we came to be America, and if we don’t quickly remember, we will make some really dumb mistakes internationallly.

From the USA Flag Site

America, The Beautiful Lyrics
by Katharine Lee Bates – 1913

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet,
Whose stern impassion’d stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America! God mend thine ev’ry flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved In liberating strife,
Who more than self their country loved,
And mercy more than life!
America! America! May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness,
And ev’ry gain divine!

O Beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam,
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America! God shed His grace on thee,
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

Happy Birthday, America!

This is a link to a video that includes Ray Charles singing “America the Beautiful.”

Thank you to all of our military past and present who have made our freedom possible.

The Heritage Foundation posted an article on Friday about the impact of high energy prices on jobs in America.  The article points out the obvious fact that America does not have a coherent energy policy–we haven’t had one in the past forty years. 

The article states:

“CEA’s (Consumer Energy Alliance) study indicates the offshore energy potential of the United States is conservatively estimated at 45 billion barrels of oil and 183 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. That would be enough oil to power 60 million vehicles for 25 years and enough natural gas to heat 60 million American homes for 57 years.

“”Demand for oil and natural gas is increasing,” said National Ocean Industries Association President Randall Luthi. “Yet we only explore for oil and gas in about 15 percent of the nation’s offshore areas — the same areas that were available when Richard Nixon was president.”

“Apart from boosting job creation and steadying oil prices, offshore energy production would garner billions for the U.S. Treasury. Declining production in the Gulf of Mexico alone could cost the federal government more than $1 billion in revenue this year.”

Drill, baby, drill. 

Meanwhile, Washington says no.  The article reports:

“Production in the western Gulf of Mexico dropped nearly one-third of a million barrels per day since last April, and the increased production in 2010 is a result of increased horizontal drilling in North Dakota. We can’t drill off the Pacific Coast, Atlantic Coast, or the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The U.S. Environmental Appeals Board withheld air quality permits preventing Shell from moving forward to develop 27 billion barrels of oil off the coasts of Alaska. The Environmental Protection Agency already issued two air permits, but Earth Justice filed a petition to review the permits, delaying the process.”

If alternative energy is allowed to develop in a free-market environment, it eventually will become practical.  Meanwhile, fossil fuel is the current coin of the realm.  We can accept that fact or we can hurt our economy and the American people by fighting the energy environment in which we currently exist.

On Friday Fox News posted an article written by Juan Williams about a tax-exempt group called Media Matters.  Media Matters was founded in 2004 by journalist and author David Brock.  Eric E. Burns has been president of the group since it was founded.

Media Matters describes itself as a progressive (liberal) media watchdog group.  There is nothing wrong with that–everyone should be watching the media for accuracy.  However, recently, they have morphed into something else. 

Mr. Williams reports:

“Since they bagan work in 2004, however, the watchdog spirit of the group’s founding has turned into an outright assault on its political opponents.  That means they delight in attacking anyone with a conservative point of view on radio or TV.  In fact, they have now announced they are engaged in a “war” against Fox News Channel and anyone who appears on their airwaves.  They have also admitted to engaging in a despicable campaign to dig up dirt on Fox News executives and producers in an attempt to do personal damage to people who are guilty of offering the public political perspectives they find disagreeable.”

It seems as if the media watchdog has gone rabid.  Please follow the link above to read the entire article by Juan Williams.  Mr. Williams does a very good job of defending true liberalism as practiced by people such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Bobby Kennedy. Somehow, the concept of civilized debate has been lost by some of the people who currently claim to be liberals.

The first paragraph of the United States Constitution states:

“We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

One of the purposes of the Union was common defence.  I fear that we have forgotten our roots.

On Thursday, Andrew McCarthy reported at The Corner at National Review Online that the Obama Administration is opening formal contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood.

Mr. McCarthy reports:

“The Brotherhood is the world’s most important Islamist organization. It is openly, unabashedly committed to the destruction of the United States and the West. In typical Obama fashion, this disastrous decision to engage America’s avowed enemies has been couched as the mere continuation of prior policy: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is reported to have confirmed that the U.S. would “resume” contacts which had “occurred in recent years.” But make no mistake about it, this is a new policy.” 

This is not a good idea.  Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy reminds us of the Muslim Brotherhoods goals (as stated in documents submitted to the court in the Holy Land Foundation Case):

First, here’s the MB’s creed:  “Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”  (Source: Husain Haqqani and Hillel Fradkin, “Islamist Parties: Going Back to the Origins.”)

Second, here’s the Ikwhan’s mission in America: 

“A kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within, sabotaging its miserable house with their [i.e., Americans’] hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.” (Source: Muslim Brotherhood’s “Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic Goals of the Group,” entered into evidence by the Department of Justice in the 2008 Holy Land Foundation terrorism-finance trial. Archived at the NEFA Foundation.)   

I guess the obviousl question here is what is the world do we hope to achieve by entering into a dialogue with people who want to destroy us?      

Scott Johnson at Power Line also comments on the idea of opening up a discourse with the Muslim Brotherhood:

“The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest and most important Islamist organization in the Arab world. It shouldn’t be too difficult to get a handle on what it is up to. It conceives of its mission as a grand jihad of global Islamization. Patrick Poole makes the salient point that the Brotherhood has spawned virtually every Islamic terrorist organization in the world. Hamas, for example, is a formal branch of the Brotherhood. Discover the Networks usefully summarizes its history.”

This is not only negotiating with terrorists, it is inviting them into your living room.  The first responsibility of the government is to protect its people.  Negotiating with terrorists never ends well, and it does not protect Americans.

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that there has been another unexpected consequence of the collective bargaining bill passed in Wisconsin. 

The article reports on events in Racine County:

“Last June, the county took Racine inmates out of their jail cells and put them behind lawn movers. They were cutting the grass in areas that the county executive says were neglected, due to budget cuts. Local unions filed a grievance saying work like that should be done by union members.

 

“A judge agreed, but now with the new collective bargaining rules in effect, that’s the kind of thing the unions can no longer negotiate. That means the county is putting the inmates back to work and adding to their to-do list.

“Racine County Executive James Ladwig said,”We’re gonna have them do landscaping at county buildings, have them pick up trash on the roads.  So we can use some of the county personnel to do difficult tasks, such as putting in a parking lot at the park.””

The inmates are also learning job skills they may be able to use when they are released.  Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about what is going on behind the scenes in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  In recent months, Iran has been shipping large quantities of weapons to be used against Americans into both of those countries. 

The Wall Street Journal reports:

“Such arms shipments would escalate the shadow competition for influence playing out between Tehran and Washington across the Middle East and North Africa, fueled by U.S. preparations to draw down forces from two wars and the political rebellions that are sweeping the region.

“The U.S. is wrestling with the aftermath of uprisings against longtime Arab allies from Tunisia to Bahrain, and trying to leave behind stable, friendly governments in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran appears to be trying to gain political ground amid the turmoil and to make the U.S. withdrawals as quick and painful as possible.”

The thing that we need to remember is that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad believes that it is his responsibility to usher in what some Shiite Muslims believe is the Muslim ‘last days.’  It is his belief that creating chaos will hasten the coming of the Twelfth Imam, which will in turn usher in the world-wide caliphate in which Iran will have a major role.  In this religious philosophy, there is no value to current life–Muslims killed creating the chaos or as innocent bystanders will immediately go to paradise, so their lives are not as important as the end goal. 

Meanwhile, since 1979, Iran has slowly been advancing on its goal of being the single important power in the Middle East.  Our departure from Iraq and Afghanistan will leave a vacuum that Iran will be happy to fill.  Once Iran activates its nuclear arsenal, neither Israel nor the United States will have any friends in the Middle East.  Iran will control the flow of the world’s oil supply through the Straits of Hormuz and aim its missles at Europe (and eventually the United States).  Unless we are energy independent as a nation and have perfected our nuclear shield by then, we have a problem.

This is the link to the video and transcript of President Obama’s Weekly Address.  This is the link to the transcript of the Republican response given by Senator Dan Coats of Indiana.

President Obama states:

“I ran for President because I believed in an America where ordinary folks could get ahead; where if you worked hard, you could have a better life. That’s been my focus since I came into office, and that has to be our focus now. It’s one of the reasons why we’re working to reduce our nation’s deficit. Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.”

He rightfully states that we have to cut spending and help businesses gain the confidence they need to grow jobs.  Then the President proceeds with the class warfare he has been known for:

“Now, it would be nice if we could keep every tax break, but we can’t afford them. Because if we choose to keep those tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, or for hedge fund managers and corporate jet owners, or for oil and gas companies pulling in huge profits without our help – then we’ll have to make even deeper cuts somewhere else. We’ve got to say to a student, ‘You don’t get a college scholarship.’ We have to say to a medical researcher, ‘You can’t do that cancer research.’ We might have to tell seniors, ‘You have to pay more for Medicare.'”

Tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires are not the problem.  Corporate jets are not the problem.  Trying to get more money out of people who have enough lawyers to move their money around in order to avoid taxes is never going to increase revenue.  It should also be mentioned at this point that President Obama considers individuals who make more than $200,000 per year deserving of a tax increase.  In some states, that is not excessive income.  Closing loopholes for millionaires and corporations might be a good idea in a healthy economy, but only with lower tax rates.  Any increases on corporations or business owners at this point is only going to be passed on the the consumer and further slow down the economy.  He is not comparing apples to apples.

The Republican response points out some of the history of the current debt crisis:

“”Unfortunately, the President’s economic plan of spending and borrowing has failed. Over the past two years, debt has skyrocketed 35 percent to our nation’s limit of $14.3 trillion. The annual deficit is now three times greater than the highest deficit of the previous administration. And today, nearly 14 million Americans are without work.

“”If these numbers aren’t alarming enough, then the President should consider the numerous warnings from the financial markets both here and abroad. The eyes of the world are fixed on the U.S. to see if we have the political courage and moral sense to solve our debt crisis.

“”The President and Democrats in Congress must recognize that their game plan is not working. It’s time to acknowledge that more government and higher taxes is not the answer to our problem. It’s time for bold action and a new plan to address our current crisis.”

Senator Coats further points out:

“”The Hoosier model is a necessary first step to repairing our country’s finances. And this week, every Senate Republican took that step by committing to a Balanced Budget Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Speaker of the House has committed to bringing the Balanced Budget Amendment to a vote later this month, and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell has committed to fighting for a vote in the Senate as well. Broke or balanced, that’s the choice before us.

“”Now some doubt our ability to overcome this fiscal crisis. But the problem we face is not insurmountable. We have overcome major challenges in the past. Times of trial have always produced moments of great leadership that rally the American people.”

To slightly alter the words of the Bill Clinton campaign, “It’s the spending, stupid!”

Hot Air posted the following quote from Harry Reid yesterday:

“[It’s] time we return to the type of fiscal discipline that democrats brought to Washington in the 90′s when democrats in the Congress and White House balanced the budget and used the surplus to do what Mr. President? To pay down the debt.”

You can even follow the link above to hear him say it in person.  Maybe some Americans will believe that what he is saying is true, but I hope the voting public has a better memory than that.

This graph below is from Heritage.org (the Heritage Foundation–a conservative website that does research on current issues).  There are a few things that need to be pointed out in reference to Senator Reid’s statement about the fiscal responsibility of the Democrats.  The first thing to remember is that any budget bills are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives.  The House of Representatives controls the spending. 

In October of 2010, the Washington Examiner observed:

“There is no doubt the 1994 revolution changed congress and passed important legislation such as welfare reform and the first balanced budget in over a generation…”

The article goes on to explain the mistakes the Republicans made in 1994, but again the Republican congress controlled the spending and cut the deficit.  In 2006, the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives and the Senate.  After the election of Barack Obama in 2008, the Democrats held a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  (So why didn’t they pass a budget?????)

The graph shows the years spending went down and the years it went up.  Our spending has increased dramatically since the Democrats took over Congress in 2007.  There have been two very expensive stimulus programs that have substantially increased our debt.  If that is the definition of fiscal discipline, we will never balance the budget!  In the 1990’s the Democrats did not have the power to impact the budget.

Senator Reid either has a very bad memory or a very tenuous relationship with the truth.

If the states are the laboratories for the federal government, Washington should be paying close attention to California and Texas right now.  California is losing businesses and tax revenue (despite raising taxes) and Texas is gaining businesses and tax revenue without raising taxes.  Now California has tried a new approach.

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported that California Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill into law that requires online businesses to collect sales tax.  In response, Amazon.com and other online retailers have declared that they no longer see the business sense in remaining in the state of California.  Amazon.com and Overstock.com both announced that they will be closing out all of their affiliates in California (affiliates are small business that sell products through Amazon and other online sites and receive a small commission).  Congratulations, Governor Brown, you just created more unemployment.

The article quotes the statement of Amazon.com to their affiliates:

“”We oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and counterproductive,” Amazon said in an email to its affiliates. “It is supported by big-box retailers, most of which are based outside California, that seek to harm the affiliate advertising programs of their competitors. Similar legislation in other states has led to job and income losses, and little, if any, new tax revenue. We deeply regret that we must take this action.””

Raising taxes (or instituting new taxes) does not raise revenue–it only causes people to change their behavior to avoid those taxes.  At a time when some Democrat Senators are accusing the Republicans of sabotaging the economy, those Senators need to look at the results of the actions of Governor Jerry Brown.  I don’t think the Democrats are purposely ruining the economy; I just think that their policies automatically do that.

The chart below is from Power Line Blog.  For a larger verson, follow the link to the article and click on the chart.  It is a very clear picture of who the ‘special interest’ groups are.  Frankly, I was floored by the chart–I had no idea the unions were spending the kind of money they are spending on elections.  Money buys advertisements.  All of us need to be very skeptical of any candidate or political advertising we hear over the next year and a half–there will be a lot of misinformation out there.  If we want to change the direction of America, we need to be paying attention.

The New York Post posted an editorial yesterday on the President’s proposals to deal with the debt ceiling.  The Post quoted some of the language used at the President’s press conference:

“”The tax cuts I’m proposing we get rid of” — that is, the tax hikes he wants to impose — “are for millionaires and billionaires . . . oil companies and hedge-fund companies and corporate-jet owners,” Obama said.

Choosing “to keep those tax breaks” — that is, to avoid hikes — “means we got to cut kids off from getting a college scholarship” and “stop funding certain grants for medical research.”

“Not only that: “Food safety may be compromised,” he warned. “Medicare has to bear a greater part of the burden . . . ”

“Why not just predict the end of all life as we know it, absent tax hikes?”

 

This is ridiculous.  Does anyone actually believe that every dollar spent by the federal government is so critical that a spending cut will endanger lives?

On July 11, 2010, the Washington Examiner reported:

“…The story for public sector employment, however, is quite the opposite. At 4.4 percent, the unemployment rate among government workers is almost exactly half that of the private sector. But the insulation of government workers from the market realities that private sector workers face is far from the whole story. The federal work force is expanding, not contracting, thanks to Obama initiatives like a health care program that adds 16,000 new Internal Revenue Service enforcers to ensure compliance with the individual mandate. Between December 2008 and December 2009, the federal government added nearly 100,000 new positions.”

Somehow I don’t think not having enough money for the government is the problem.  As the government grows, the private sector shrinks.  The President might want to keep that in mind as he continues he quest to lower unemployment.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday about President Obama’s press conference.  Mr. Hinderaker points out that most Americans understand that the debt problem has more to do with spending than it does with lack of taxes. 

The article posts John Boehner’s response to the President’s press conference:

“The President’s remarks today ignore legislative and economic reality, and demonstrate remarkable irony. His administration has been burying our kids and grandkids in new debt and offered no plan to rein in spending. Republicans have been leading and offering solutions to put the brakes on this spending binge. The President has been AWOL from that debate.

“The President is sorely mistaken if he believes a bill to raise the debt ceiling and raise taxes would pass the House. The votes simply aren’t there – and they aren’t going to be there, because the American people know tax hikes destroy jobs. They also know Washington has been on a spending binge for many years, and they will only tolerate a debt limit increase if we stop it.

“The new majority in the House is going to stand with the American people. A debt limit increase can only pass the House if it includes spending cuts larger than the debt limit increase; includes reforms to hold down spending in the future; and is free from tax hikes. The longer the President denies these realities, the more difficult he makes this process. If the president embraces a measure that meets these tests, he has my word that the House will act on it. Anything less cannot pass the House.”

That pretty much sums it up.  The voters made it clear in 2010 that they did not support the tax and spend programs currently happening in Washington.  Any Republican or Democrat that is up for reelection in 2012 will not be willing to vote for any tax increases.  The class warfare may work on some people, but most Americans are smarter than that.

Yesterday a website called postcrescent.com posted an article detailing what has happened as a result of the law passed in Wisconsin after the heated budget debate.  The changes in collective bargaining rules for public employees went into effect yesterday, and there has already been an impact.  The budget of the Kaukauna Area School District will move from a projected deficit of $400,000 to a $1.5 million surplus due to healthcare and retirement savings. 

The article reports:

“The Kaukauna School Board approved changes Monday to its employee handbook that require staff to cover 12.6 percent of their health insurance and to contribute 5.8 percent of their wages to the state’s pension system, in accordance with the new collective bargaining law, commonly known as Act 10.

“”These impacts will allow the district to hire additional teachers (and) reduce projected class sizes,” School Board President Todd Arnoldussen wrote in a statement Monday. “In addition, time will be available for staff to identify and support students needing individual assistance through individual and small group experiences.””

If the change in the law results in smaller class sizes (which it is expected to do), isn’t that what the teachers said they wanted? 

It is interesting that this information comes out just before the Republicans face their recall election on July 12 and the Democrats on July 19.  The voters of Wisconsin will have the last word on whether they approve of the antics involved in blocking (or passing) the law which changed union collective bargaining rights for public employees.

Today’s Daily Caller is reporting that North Korea became the president of the United Nations Conference on Disarmament as of Tuesday.

The article reports:

“According to the U..N. summary of the meeting, North Korea’s So Se Pyong addressed the 65-member arms control forum, saying that “he was very much committed to the Conference and during his presidency he welcomed any sort of constructive proposals that strengthened the work and credibility of the body.””

The article further reports that Syria (despite recent brutality toward civilians) is set to join the United Nations Human Rights Council.

One way to cut the United States budget would be to stop paying our United Nations dues and kick the organization out of New York City.

Fox News reported yesterday on testimony from Marine Lt. Gen. John Allen, nominated to replace Gen. Petraeus as head of coalition forces in Afghanistan. 

This is his response to questions being asked by Sen. Lindsey Graham:

GRAHAM: The option that the country has chosen through President Obama is to withdraw 10,000 this year, all surge forces gone by September. Is it fair to say, General Allen, that was not one of the options presented to the president by General Petraeus?

ALLEN: It is a more aggressive option than that which was presented.

GRAHAM: My question is, was that a option?

ALLEN: It was not.

If you follow the link above, you can read more of the testimony.  What we have here is a Commander-in-Chief with no military experience ignoring the advice of one of his most experienced generals.  This is a political calculation–not a winning strategy.  This is highly unfortunate and will harm America’s war effort and America’s image around the world.