The UK Sun is reporting today that Noah’s Ark has been found in Turkey.  Now please understand, I don’t have a problem with the story of Noah’s Ark, I just have a problem with it being found in Turkey.  It may actually be there, but I remain skeptical.

Anyway.  The remains of Noah’s Ark are reported to have been found by a group of Chinese and Turkish evangelical explorers 13,000 feet up on Mount Ararat.  They claim that carbon dating places the wreckage at about 4,800 years old–about the time the ark was supposed to exist.

The Turkist government is applying for Ankara to apply for UNESCO World Heritage status in order to protect the site while a major archaeological dig will be undertaken to determine exactly what the site is. 

As I said, I have no problem believing the story of Noah’s Ark–I figure God can do pretty much anything he chooses to do–I just really have a hard time believing the wooden structure that was the ark survived almost 5,000 years.  Stay tuned.

Today at the Corner at National Review Online, Mark Steyn speaks out on the recent South Park controversy involving their portrayal of Muhammad.  In response to the censorship, Sarah Norris, a cartoonist, started “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day“.  On Friday Sarah told a Seattle talk show host that “as a cartoonist, I just felt so much passion about what had happened…” noting that “it’s a cartoonist’s job to be non-PC.”

Today according to Mark Steyn:

“Her stark website today reads: “”I am NOT involved in “Everybody Draw Mohammd [sic] Day!””

What is going on here?  As the western world bows to the demands of Islam, we are more and more finding out that practicing tolerance is a one-way street.  Mr. Steyn reports of an incident in a school:

“Around 2002 she (a London Times writer) began to encounter explicitly anti-Semitic speech from Muslim students: “Does someone smell a Jew? It stinks here.” “You are not human, you are a Jew.” Had Anglo-Saxon skinheads essayed such jests, Oliver Kamm’s warriors of secular pluralism would have crushed them like bugs. But when the teacher went to the principal, and the school board, and the local “hate-crimes unit,” they all looked the other way and advised her that it would be easier if she retired. Sixty out of 75 French teachers at the school opted to leave: A couple were Jewish, a few more practicing Catholics, and most of the rest were the liberal secularists on whom Oliver Kamm’s defense of the West rests. The francophone children withdrew, too. And now the principal and most of the students and faculty are Muslim.”

There are more ways to take over a country than guns.  We need to make sure as a nation that when we are tolerant of other cultures in our midst that those cultures respect America and its culture.

When I saw Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska vote against the financial reform bill yesterday, I assumed that it was because he is in political trouble in his state after reversing his vote on healthcare reform.  I was wrong.

Today’s Washington Examiner reports the following:

“On the financial bill, at the request of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, Nelson had added a provision to the financial reform bill that would exempt existing derivatives contracts from new collateral requirements. The provision would have saved Berkshire Hathaway the trouble of setting aside $8 billion in collateral.

“But Senate Democrats killed that provision before yesterday’s failed vote.”

The provision that the Democrats killed will cost Berkshire Hathaway up to $8 billion in money they will have to set aside to meet the requirements of the new reform.  The company holds $63 billion in derivatives contracts with very little collateral.  Holding that much of any financial product without collateral is risky, but frankly I would be more inclined to trust Warren Buffet with my money than the government.

On March 20th, Representative Andre Carson claimed that when he left the Canon office building, he was greated by health care protestors shouting the “N word”.  He stated that the scene was so hostile, he expected rocks to follow.  Andrew Breitbart offered $100,000 for proof of the racial slurs.

Yesterday Big Government posted an article detailing the results of offering that $100,000.  Andrew Breitbart still has his money. 

According to the article:

“It’s not just that Congressmen Carson’s accusation of an extraordinary racist verbal assault by the tea party participants on March 20 doesn’t appear to have occurred, it’s that the accusers have now gone into the bunker and, having raised the incendiary subject, are doing everything they can to avoid the discussion.”

In replying to a statement that Andrew Breitbart ‘won’ because no one could actually provie the charge, the article further states:

“But how does that “win” manifest itself? On April 15, the day of the Tax Day Tea Party in front of the White House, and being interviewed by ABC’s Terry Moran for Nightline set to air Tuesday night, I passionately defended the movement against the powerful racism charge that has been greatly pushed by the Congressional Black Caucus’s accusation of a 1960 Selma-like incident near the Capitol.

“At least twice during the spirited questioning by Moran, bystanders screamed “racist” at me.

“The power of the propaganda. The power of the repeated accusations. The power of the relentless race-based line of questioning. They are all adding up to the liars and slanderers getting exactly what they wanted. The Tea Party is marred by racism charges while Congressman Carson, at the least, should be facing an ethics investigation, and a civil rights legend should be asking for forgiveness for allowing for the hateful lie to stand.”

It’s time for the media to stop calling people names and be willing to talk about the solutions to the economic and terrorist threats this country faces.

I am not a scientist, so if anyone reading this has scientific information, please comment.  I truly do not know what to make of this story.

This is a satellite picture that was posted at the UK Daily Mail website today included in a article stating that the volcanie ash cloud over Britain after the eruption of the Iceland volcano was non-existent.

According to the article:

“Jim McKenna, the Civil Aviation Authority’s head of airworthiness, strategy and policy, admitted: ‘It’s obvious that at the start of this crisis there was a lack of definitive data.

“‘It’s also true that for some of the time, the density of ash above the UK was close to undetectable.’

“The satellite images will be used by airlines in their battle to win tens of millions of pounds in compensation from governments for their losses.”

Wow.  Just wow. 

Byron York posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the Democrats in Congress deciding to go forward with an Immigration Reform Bill rather than a Cap and Trade Bill.  I suspect this move will result in neither bill passing Congress.  The failure to pass these two bills may be the only hope the Democrats have of maintaining control of Congress after the November elections.

Lindsey Graham had crafted an energy bill with John Kerry and Joe Lieberman.  The bill was supposed to be unvieled today.  But things changed.  After the unveiling of the Arizona legislation, the Democrats felt they could use the ‘crisis’ (remember “never let a crisis go to waste”) for political advantage and pass immigration reform.  That would be an amazing reach–the last effort at immigration reform (2006 and 2007) took many hours of bi-partisan work and eventually failed.  To put together a workable immigration bill before the November elections (the theory is that new Hispanic citizens will vote Democrat) and pass it (assuming someone will have time to read it) would be an amazing feat.  Also, keep in mind that with so many Congressional incumbents being seriously challenged in the November election, Congress is going to want to get out of Washington and seriously campaign before too long.

The American people have said for a number of years that the first priority of an immigration bill should be to secure the boarders.  Until we do that, anything else is meaningless.  Serial amnesty is not a workable policy for the longterm security of our country.  I support what Arizona is doing and definitely understand their reasons for taking action to reduce the number of crimes being committed in that state by illegal aliens.

No, this isn’t an article about some dangerous right-wing extremist or even some dangerous left-wing extremist–it’s about giving Congress the information they are looking for regarding the shooting at Fort Hood.

Today’s Washington Post posted an editorial about the difficulties the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee has had getting access to documents and witnesses in the Fort Hood shooting investigation. 

According to the article:

“The committee’s chairman and ranking Republican, respectively Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (Maine), have taken the dramatic step of subpoenaing the Defense and Justice departments. The committee is looking into what advance warning the Army or others had about the risks posed by the accused Fort Hood shooter, Maj. Nidal M. Hasan.”

The Washington Post points out that the Congressional investigation could easily proceed without interfering with the criminal charges.  The goal of the Congressional investigation is different from the goal of the criminal investigation.  The Congressional investigation is looking into the incident in order to find ways of preventing future incidents–they are not involved in criminal prosecution.

I have only one idea on how to prevent future incidents–common sense.  The information that has come out about Major Hasan since the shooting shows a number of incidents that should have set off alarms.  Evidently, those alarms were ignored our of fear of being labeled anti-Muslim. 

According to the UK Telegraph on November 8th of last year:

“He (Major Hasan) also told colleagues at America’s top military hospital that non-Muslims were infidels condemned to hell who should be set on fire. The outburst came during an hour-long talk Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, gave on the Koran in front of dozens of other doctors at Walter Reed Army Medical Centre in Washington DC, where he worked for six years before arriving at Fort Hood in July.”

He is entitled to his belief that infidels are condemned to hell.  The problem is that he made it clear that he put no value on their lives.  The shooting at Fort Hood had nothing to do with a lack of laws–it had to do with an unwillingness on the part of the military to see what was right in front of them.

I missed this when it was posted.  I’m posting it now because I think it is extremely important.  This article is based on two sources, a Wall Street Journal article on April 14th and a Big Government article by John Loudon.

According to the Wall Street Journal, a federal rule went into effect April 13th that would “require “project labor agreements” for all construction projects larger than $25 million. This means that only contractors that agree to union representation are eligible for work financed by the U.S. taxpayer.”   This is the result of an executive order signed by President Obama early in his presidency. 

The Big Government article points out:

“The cronyism that the Wall Street Journal discusses is the cynical modification to these policies that began creeping into contracts about 20 years ago.  It stipulates that no matter what the jurisdictional issues are, all of the workers will be supporting the union pension fund.”

There are a few problems with this law.  Only 15% of construction workers are unionized.  To demand that all government construction work be unionized seriously hampers the competitive bidding process–non-union contractors cannot submit bids. 

A White House economist stated that this would cut costs, but according to the Wall Street Journal, that is simply not true:

“Mr. Bernstein could check all this with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which last year commissioned an independent study showing the Obama project labor agreements would likely raise the VA’s construction costs for hospitals by as much as 9% in three of five markets–Denver, New Orleans and Orlando. In two others, New York and San Francisco, the study predicted a mixture of small cost increases and small cost savings.”

According to Big Government, pensions are the root of the problem:

“The worst part of the Obama executive order is the real reason for it.  According to a September, 2009 report by Moody’s Investor Services, construction union pensions in 2008 were just 54% funded.  Just like Social Security, the promised union pensions were too fat.  They were built on the similar demographic flaw of social security.  The system would pay full benefits to the earliest retirees, but would only be able to continue to do that if the ratio of workers to retirees is sustainable.  So what does it mean when the ratio fails?  How do you restore the footing on a plan so underfunded when the ration of worker to retiree continues to get worse?”

The question is, “What is the solution to the problem of favoritism in government?”  The answer actually is fairly simple.  Big Government concludes:

“As broad as the problem is, there are many ways to fight it.  If you are a contractor, join your local merit shop contractor association.   Let your Congressional delegation know that you are 100% against private pension fund bailouts.  Meanwhile, pay attention to all elections, not just those for partisan offices.  At least take note whether your public boards are working for you.  Finally, consider becoming a candidate yourself.  There may not be as much glamor in a City council seat, but there just may be an ABC chapter that is hungry for a candidate, willing to donate some seed money.  Help them help you.”

Paying attention to politics at all levels has always been a good idea, but I don’t think it has ever been as necessary as it is now.  If Americans do not begin to vote against the kind of favoritism that this administration is showing toward unions (violating backruptcy law in government takeovers, limiting the bidding process on construction projects, etc.), we are going to find ourselves living in a country where freedom is a distant memory.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported Friday on the announcement that GM had paid off its government loans.  Well, things are not always what they appear to be.  I am not a financial analyst, and I don’t claim to understand everything I am about to relate, but I will do my best.

According to the article:

“During an April 20 hearing on Capital Hill, Sen. Tom Carper, (D-Del.) asked some pointed questions of Neil Barofsky, the “special watch dog” on the Wall Street Bailout, aka, TARP.

“”It’s good news in that they’re reducing their debt,” Barofsky said of the accelerated GM payments, “but they’re doing it by taking other available TARP money.”…”

Wow.  Does that mean if I pay my VISA with my MasterCard, I can consider myself out of debt?  This is my kind of accounting! 

Mr. Morrissey further reports:

“Instead, GM seems to be using TARP funds from an escrow account at Treasury to make the debt repayments. The most recent quarterly report from the Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP says “The source of funds for these quarterly [debt] payments will be other TARP funds currently held in an escrow account.” See, Office of the Special Inspector General for TARP, Quarterly Report to Congress dated April 20, 2010, page 115.”

Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA) has written a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner asking the following questions:

“Mr. Girsky then said that GM originally planned to pay the loan over the next five years. So the question is why–other than a desire to justify excluding GM from the administration’s TARP tax proposal–would Treasury and GM reduce GM’s TARP debt with TARP equity and then mischaracterize it as a repayment from earnings? Accordingly, please explain:

1) Your department’s justification for allowing GM to use funds from the TARP escrow account to repay TARP loans,

2) The amount of funds remaining in the TARP escrow account at Treasury that may be released to GM, and

3) The date that you anticipate that the remaining funds in escrow will be released to GM.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Please provide the requested information by April 30, 2010. …”

I, for one, would like to read the answer to that letter.

This a picture of some of our soldiers in Afghanistan.  The picture is part of an article by Michael Yon about the battle for Kandahar.  The article can be found at MichaelYon-online.com.  It is a rather long article, but I strongly suggest reading it.  Michael gives some insight into the history of the war in Afghanistan and what is involved in fighting it.

Please pray for our servicemen and women.

Howie Carr posted an article at the Boston Herald today about the fact that property taxes in Massachusetts are about to go up.  Property taxes are supposed to be limited by Proposition 2 1/2.  Proposition 2 1/2 was approved by Massachusetts voters in 1980 and put into effect in fiscal year 1982.  The Proposition limits the amount of money a city or town may raise from property taxes each year to fund municipal operations.  Well, the Massachusetts state legislature is working on finding a way to get around Proposition 2 1/2. 

According to Howie Carr:

“This time, as you know, the hacks want to sock it to homeowners, allowing the taxaholic towns to raise property taxes beyond the 2.5 percent limit imposed by Proposition 2 ½.

“The harebrained scheme is being pushed by a genius named Charlie Murphy, who is the chairman of Ways and Means. First he said this “adjustment” in Prop 2 ½, involving something called an overlay fund, was not a tax increase. But the Lowell Sun reports he then “conceded the fact that most communities would likely raise property taxes more than 2.5 percent.” Without putting it to a vote.”

Mr. Carr points out that the plan to raise property taxes is being kept rather quiet until after the filing deadline for candidates in the November election.  This year Massachusetts has many Republicans running for state and national office, and hopefully we can someday become a two-party state.  Meanwhile we need to vote out of office anyone who votes for this game to override Proposition 2 1/2.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that President Obama has called for an overhaul of America’s immigration laws.  The President stated that a failure to do so would result in more ‘misguided’ attempts by the states (such as Arizona) to fix those laws.

Just for the record, I don’t believe this is by accident.  I think the Obama Administration has been looking for an excuse to go after immigration reform, and Arizona provided it.

Well, hold on a minute.  It seems as if Arizona has a much better picture of the immigration issues than Washington, D. C., would have.  Arizona has been dealing with major crime problems caused by Washington’s lack of enforcement of immigration laws for years.  Last month according to Fox News, a rancher was killed (allegedly by illegal aliens) while working on his ranch.  Last year according to the Washington Times, a rancher was sued by illegals for turning them over to the Border Patrol.  When I grew up, that was called good citizenship.

I am not opposed to legal immigration.  I agree that the legal immigration system needs to be streamlined and reformed.  I do, however, object to the idea of instantly making illegal aliens citizens.  We have people who have been on waiting lists for years wanting to come to this country.  It seems to me that they should be at the head of the line–not the illegals.

My concern with Congress putting together an immigration bill is that it will be used as the basis for registering millions of new Democrats in time for the November elections.  I simply do not trust the current Congress to act in the best interests of the country they are supposed to represent.  I am also concerned that because there are only seven months until the election, something will be rushed through without anyone knowing what is actually in it (sound familiar?).  It’s time to step back and see what the impact of the new law in Arizona will be.  We can watch that for a year or so and then proceed.

According to the Associate Press yesterday, posted at the Washington Examiner, the Supreme Court has refused to hear a request for overturning the ban on federal funding to ACORN. 

“The high court on Friday refused to throw out a decision by the federal appellate court in New York City. That court had decided to freeze a judge’s determination that Congress acted unconstitutionally in yanking the group’s funding.”

Aside from the money-saving aspect of this, I think ACORN should be denied funding.  The federal government has been extremely lax in its oversight of the money it gives out to all organizations, and it is time to reevaluate all of this kind of spending.  If money given to an organization results in a positive impact on the community, that is one thing.  If money given to an organization results in highly paid staff accomplishing very little, that needs to stop.

Yesterday Grace-Marie Turner at National Review Online posted an article about the report from Medicare’s chief actuary, Richard Foster.  The report lists nine problems with the healthcare reform bill:

• Employer coverage will decrease–it will be cheaper for employers to pay fines than to insure employees–forcing people to enroll in Medicaid.  This will overburden Medicaid.  Seniors will lose Medicare Advantage coverage.
• Businesses will be faced with hugh penalties because they will not be able to afford the policies the government requires.
• The increased costs to businesses will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices for drugs, medical devices, and premiums.
• The “CLASS Act” long-term-care insurance is probably unsustainable.
• National health spending will increase by $311 billion over the next ten years, increasing federal spending rather than decreasing it.
• In 2019, there will still be approximately 23 million people uninsured–5 million illegal aliens and 18 million who pay the fine instead of the cost of insurance.
• Spending reductions “may not be fully achievable”.  Sounds like a normal government program.
• There will be fewer places that senior citizens will be able to go for treatment.  Access to care for senior citizens will quickly become an issue.
• The increased demands on Medicaid will make it difficut to find care.

I got a letter from my Congressional Representative yesterday explaining how great the healthcare reform bill was.  I wrote him back that I would be actively campaigning for his opponent in November.  Please join me–if your Congressman (or Congresswoman) voted for the healthcare reform bill, please donate or campaign for their opponent in November.  We need to repeal this awful bill before it has time to do any serious damage to our country.

Investors.com posted an article yesterday by Michael Barone on what is happening in the financial sector of our economy under the Obama Administration.  He reminds us of the Chrysler bailout where bankruptcy law was violated and bondholders forced to accept 33 cents on the dollar on secured debts while United Auto Worker retirees were given 50 cents on the dollar on unsecured debts.  Unfortunately, the saga continues.

Last Friday, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Goldman Sachs charging it violated the law in the sale of one of its financial products.  There are a few fishy things in this charge.  Fishy thing number one–the charges have to do with the fact that the company did not disclose that the product was put together by John Paulson–at that point, he was not well known, and disclosing his involvement would not have mattered.  Fishy thing number two–the Securities and Exchange Commission usually moves on a complaint only when they have a unanimous vote–in this case the vote was not unanimous and strictly along party lines.  Fishy thing number three–Democrats immediately cited the complaint as a reason to pass Chris Dodd’s financial reform package.

One of the provisions in the financial reform package:

“Politically connected creditors would have every reason to assume they’d get favorable treatment. The Dodd bill specifically authorizes the FDIC to treat “creditors similarly situated” differently.”

This is not a recipe for good financial governance.  There are a few other problems with the bill:

“…Dodd bill gives the Treasury and the FDIC authority to grant an unlimited number of loan guarantees to “too big to fail” firms. CEOs might want to have receipts for their contributions to Sen. Charles Schumer and the Obama campaign in hand when they apply.”

“Labor gets ‘proxy access’ to bring its agenda items before shareholders as well as annual ‘say on pay’ for executives. Consumer activists get a brand new agency funded directly out of the seniorage the Fed earns. No oversight by the Federal Reserve Board or by Congress on how the money is spent.”

The problem with the bill is that it encourages political favoritism.  We have that to some degree already–we don’t need to institutionalize it.

Fox News reported yesterday that the Pentagon has withdrawn its invitation to Franklin Graham to speak at its National Day of Prayer Services on May 6.  The invitation was withdrawn because of statements Mr. Graham made after September 11th concerning the nature of the Muslim religion.  It is no secret to any student of history that the goal of Islam is world domination.  The Koran makes that perfectly clear.  There are millions of peace-loving Muslims who practice Islam while ignoring that aspect of the religion, but unfortunately there are also a small minority who see world domination as a valid goal of their religion.  We ignore that fact at our own peril.  It seems to me that the Pentagon would be more aware of the existence of radical Islam than the rest of us.  The shooting at Fort Hood, Texas, recently should be a reminder of the fact that there are some aspects of Islam that are not peace-loving.  It should be noted that the group that originally protested Mr. Graham’s speaking was the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).  CAIR has had some very questionable associations involving terrorist groups and is very adept at using the American legal system against Americans.  It is unfortunate that they were able to prevent Mr. Graham from speaking to the Pentagon on the National Day of Prayer. 

Franklin Graham through his organization Samaritan’s Purse has done a lot of work globally to help people in Muslim countries.  He has spent more time visiting countries under Muslim rule than most people.  This is what the article says about his attitude toward Islam:

“Franklin, the son of famed evangelist Billy Graham, told Fox News that he loves Muslim people and wants them to know that God loves them, even if they can be saved only through Jesus Christ.

“I want them to know that they don’t have to die in a car bomb, don’t have to die in some kind of holy war to be accepted by God. But it’s through faith in Jesus Christ and Christ alone,” Graham said. 

Graham said said he loves the Muslim people, just not their religion — which he called “horrid” for its restrictions on women.”

It is very unfortunate that Franklin Graham will not be speaking at the Pentagon observance of the National Day of Prayer.  Aside from the fact that he has a son currently serving in Afghanistan, he has a lot to say.

According to the Republican Committee On Oversight And Government Reform website yesterday,  the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit decided to stay the December 2009 injunction by Clinton-appointed Judge Nina Gershon that the Congressional funding ban on the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) was unconstitutional.  Until the U. S. Court of Appeals further reviews the case, the ban will be in effect, and ACORN will not receive taxpayer dollars.

U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary Committee, released a statement yesterday that applauded the action that restored the ban on funding for ACORN.  The funding was denied due to criminal conduct and wasteful spending on the part of the organization.  Representative Issa pointed out that Congress does have the right to deny federal funds to an organization.

It will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out.

Today’s Auburn Citizen posted an article about the eminent domain discussion surrounding Hilton Hotel’s plan to build a hotel and conference center in downtown Auburn, New York.

According to the article:

“A reporting crew from Fox News Channel was in Auburn all day Wednesday to cover a proposal for a hotel and conference center for a series on private property issues.

“The proposal has become the center of a local debate in recent weeks because the developer is asking a city development organization to use eminent domain if the property owners at the site won’t sell.”

When did developers obtain the right to ask a city development organization to use eminent domain to force property owners to give up their property? 

Also reported:

“Auburn Mayor Michael Quill also appeared in at least one segment, and was quoted saying that the city doesn’t “want to hurt” business owners, but also has to look at the “long range for the entire community.””

This is very simple.  Individual property rights are one of the tenets of the U. S. Constitution.  The 2005 decision on the Connecticut case by the Supreme Court was wrong.  It’s time to undo it.  The only reason the local politicians are supporting kicking out the current businesses is that they feel the Hilton Hotel, etc., will give them more money to spend.  This is wrong and needs to be stopped.  Just because my house or business is in a desirable location, I should not have to be in fear of my town government in cohoots with a developer taking my property from me and giving to another private owner.  This is not what eminent domain was intended to cover.  To take property for a road or a public purpose is one thing.  To transfer private property from one private owner to another private owner without the first owner’s consent is simply wrong.

Yesterday the New York Daily News reported that an Islamic group in Queens, New York, posted on their website, RevolutionMuslim.com, that the creators of South Park ‘would probably end up like Theo Van Gogh.’  (Theo Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 because of a documentary he made about violence against Muslim women.)   A spokesman for the group says that the statement was not a threat, it was just a statement of fact. 

According to the article:

“Despite
claims that they did not seek to invite violence against Stone and Parker, the
site also reportedly revealed where the “South Park” creators work,
and included a sermon calling for punishments for blasphemy against the Muslim
religion.”

It has been years since I have watched South Park.  The show is not for anyone who is offended by coarse language or irreverence.  However, the show has probably mocked every aspect of our society and most celebrities during the time it has been on the air.  The show has been threatened with lawsuits on a regular basis and has enraged someone or other pretty much every week.  However, all that said, threatening death for comic satire is something new to America.  I really think we need to examine this closely and see how we should deal with this.  It seems as if the website could reasonably be charged with making threats.  It also seems that there is a radical element within the Muslim faith that bears more of a resemblance to the Mafia than to a religion.

Dennis Prager posted an opinion piece in the Washington Examiner today about the relationship between America and Israel under the Obama Administration.  Mr. Prager points out that only 9 percent of Jewish Israelis believe that the Obama Administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian. 

There are a few things we need to remember about Israel.  Israel votes with us at the United Nations more often than any other nation.  Israel also provides us with new technology and and intelligence.  Israel shares the ideals of the founders of America.  A rift between America and Israel does not further the cause of peace in the Middle East–it simply emboldens the enemies of freedom to act against Israel because they do not fear American retaliation.  As Iran has become a major threat to Middle East peace, the weakening of Israel (and the weakening of the Israel-American alliance) simply will embolden Iran.  Lastly, there are many conservative Christians in America who believe the Book of Genesis in the Bible when it says, “I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you.”

If you look at modern history, you can see examples of this Biblical truth.  England lost its empire after it reneged on the Balfour Declaration of 1917 (which was supposed to establish the State of Israel and the State of Palestine (in Trans-Jordan).  Germany was divided and economically cripped for a generation or more after Kristallnacht.  The parts of the Arab world that today are focused on hating Israel today are, for the most part, living centuries behind the rest of the world.  With the vast natural resources they have (oil, etc.), what is hindering their progress?

I for one do not want to see America abandon its alliance with Israel.  Whether or not you believe the Bible, I see nothing to be gained by testing this particular verse.  Ignoring the Biblical advice, we need to be friends with Israel just as a practical matter.  They have been good friends for a long time; we don’t need to desert them as their enemies grow stronger.

No, I don’t mean the SALT treaty–I mean salt–the stuff you have in a shaker on your dinner table.  Haven’t they got better things to do?  Like deal with the Iranian nuclear threat?

Anyway, according to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air yesterday, the government is moving toward creating the crisis that will allow it to regulate the amount of salt used in processed foods.  OK, there is too much salt in some canned soup, but those of us who read labels can avoid buying soup with too much salt, and eventually the companies who manufacture it will make more of the lower salt variety.  That is how the free market works.  However, the free market seems to be temporarily sent out to lunch.

According to the article:

“Officials have not determined the salt limits. In a complicated
undertaking, the FDA would analyze the salt in spaghetti sauces, breads
and thousands of other products that make up the $600 billion food and
beverage market, sources said. Working with food manufacturers, the
government would set limits for salt in these categories, designed to
gradually ratchet down sodium consumption. The changes would be
calibrated so that consumers barely notice the modification.”

The article further points out:

“High-salt diets may not increase the risk of death, contrary to
long-held medical beliefs, according to investigators from the Albert
Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University.

“They reached their conclusion after examining dietary intake among a
nationally representative sample of adults in the U.S. The Einstein
researchers actually observed a significantly increased risk of death
from cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with lower sodium diets.”

So why in the world is the government doing this?  It seems to me that the government is interfering in an awful lot of different areas of our lives for no apparent reason.  Again, the consumer will naturally buy the products that they feel are healthier, the government does not need to intervene.  If the problem is an uneducated consumer, the answer is to educate the consumer–not more government regulation.

According to Associated Press posted at Yahoo.com yesterday, there is fear that another volcano is ready to erupt in Iceland.  The volcano, Katla, is under the Myrdalsjokull glacier, one of Iceland’s largest glaciers.  Because it would have to go through roughly twice the amount of ice that the current eruption had to go through, it would be a much larger eruption (and create more problems with the melting glacier as well as the ash cloud).  The new volcano is about twelve miles from the current eruption of the Eyjafjallajokull volcano.

Above is a map of Iceland I copied from LonelyPlanet.  The current eruption and the anticipated eruption are in the bottom center of the map.  The picture in my previous article about the recent volcanic activity in Iceland was taken west of Grindavik, which is in the lower left hand part of the map.  Iceland sits where two tectonic plates meet and is an island powered by the ‘green’ energy of the volcanic activity where the plates meet and underneath the entire island.  Other than the fact that another eruption will negatively impact air travel around the world, we need to consider also the impact it will have on the people living in the area.

This is a link to a video I found on facebook (posted by Operation Snakebite), Lost In Translation.  The video deals with the problems our American soldiers are having in Helmand Province in Afghanistan due to the language barrier.  The language and cultural battles are difficult.  There are three major languages in Afghanistan and it is difficult to find translators.  It is amazing to see the poverty of the Afghanistan people and their reluctance to ask for the help they need without the approval of the village leader.

The news is full of the Securities and Exchange filing fraud charges against Goldman Sachs.  The timing, however, is interesting. 

According to the article:

“Internet surfers who entered “Goldman Sachs SEC”
into Google were directed to the president’s campaign Web site via a sponsored
link titled “Help Change Wall Street.”

“The White House’s political arm paid for the keywords —
but would not say how much.”

Meanwhile, the White House is claiming they had no advance knowledge of the lawsuit.  The Obama Administration is using the lawsuit as a prop to push its financial regulation legislation.

The idea of financial regulation is a good one, but there are some problems with this bill.  The bill includes a $50 billion bailout slush fund to help any business that is “too big to fail.”  The money is administered by the Treasury Department–not by Congress.  That is unconstitutional (if anyone is paying attention to the Constitution these days).  Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not included in the financial reform bill–they are not being reformed, despite their role in the mortgage meltdown crisis that began our downward economic spiral. 

The current bill is approximately 1,500 pages long.  Is Congress capable of writing and passing a law that anyone can read and understand?  If not, we need a new Congress.

Yesterday, Investors.com posted a story on what is happening in the health insurance industry in Massachusetts.  The story was posted to shed light on some of the possible consequences of the national healthcare reform bill that was recently passed.

One of the arguments used in supporting the healthcare reform bill was that it would provide affordable health insurance coverage for all Americans.  Under the recently passed bill, everyone must purchase health insurance of pay a fine.  In theory this is a good idea–it provides a larger pool of covered people and spreads the cost around.  However, there will always be people who take pride in gaming the system.  That is what has happened in Massachusetts.

In Massachusetts the fine for not having health insurance covereage is about $900 a year.  The cost of coverage is about $2000 to $3000 a year. 

According to the article:

“Last year, Charles Baker, former CEO of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, one of Massachusetts’s largest health plans, noticed some health insurance brokers posting comments on his widely read blog. They were suspicious that people were applying for health coverage after a medical condition developed, got the care they needed, and then dropped the coverage.”

Mr. Baker decided to look into this.  According to the article, this is what he found:

“From April 2008 to March 2009, 40% of the individuals who applied to Harvard Pilgrim stayed covered for less than five months. Yet claims were averaging about $2,400 a month, about six times what one would expect.”

Needless to say, this greatly impacts the actuary tables the insurance companies use to calculate rates.  This has created a nightmare in terms of the insurance companies asking to raise their rates (the law of unintended consequences) when the legislation was supposed to bring down the cost of health insurance.  We can expect more of the same in the national healthcare reform if it is not repealed and replaced.