According to yesterday’s New York Daily News, when Moammar Khadafy comes to New York later this month to visit the UN, he will ask the UN to dissolve the country of Switzerland.  He wants to country split up between France, Italy, and Germany.  Why?  A year ago, Khadafy’s son Hannibal was arrested in Geneva for beating two servants with a belt and a coat hangar.  He had previously had run-ins with the French because of drunk driving. 

According to the article, there was some major fallout from the incident in Geneva:

“Libya retaliated with fury, recalling some diplomats, withdrawing $5 billion from Swiss banks, shuttering the Tripoli office of Nestle and threatening to cut oil deliveries. Two Swiss businessmen were barred from leaving the country until Libya received an apology for Hannibal’s arrest.

For a year, the issue festered. Two weeks ago, Swiss President Hans-Rudolf Merz traveled to Tripoli to apologize for the arrest and Libya promised to let the hostages go by Sept. 1.”

The UN charter specifically states that no member can threaten the sovereignty of another member.  Although that rule is consistently overlooked in the case of Iran threatening Israel, there is a good chance it will be followed here. 

This is a disjointed article, linking to one or two things, that simply expresses some of my thoughts and observations about what I have seen and heard over the past few days.

On healthcare–the debate is not about healthcare–everyone in the US gets healthcare–the question is who pays for it and how much is available.  I think it’s interesting that some of my liberal friends who have been screaming for years that the government lies to us are so anxious to put the government in charge of their healthcare.  I have read ‘translations’ of the bill and have a lot of questions.  If we cut the amount of money going to medicare at a time that the baby boomers are reaching medicare age, how are we going to avoid rationing care?   A news story broke this week in the UK Telegraph about the care that elderly patients receive in the United Kingdom.  Being forced to die does not fit my definition of healthcare.  It is also noteworthy that assisted suicide is legal in two of the United States.  This may be a trend.  Do we want to put the people who have totally botched paying car dealers in ‘cash for clunkers’ in charge of our healthcare?

The following is quoted from “Your Social Security Statement” published by our government:

“Social Security is a compact between generations.  For decades, America has kept the promise of security for its workers and their families.  Now, however, the Social Security system is facing serious financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure the system will be sound when today’s younger workers are ready for retirement.

“In 2017 we will begin paying more in (Social Security) benefits than we collect in taxes.  Without changes, by 2014 the Social Security Trust Fund (which does not exist) will be exhausted and there will be enough money to pay only about 78 cents for each dollar of scheduled benefits.  We need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations.”

I believe George Bush tried to fix this problem and was blocked by the Democrat Congress.  Congress has been taking money out of the Social Security Trust Fund since the 1960’s and putting in worthless IOU’s.  Congress opted out of Social Security about the same time they started robbing the trust fund.  I suspect we shouldn’t hold our breath waiting for them to sign on to the ‘public option’ in healthcare. 

In relation to the President addressing all schoolchildren next week.  This just seems odd to me.  The children are a captive audience–they are in school because the law requires them to be there.  I would much rather the President address them on a weekend when they can (or not) watch the address with their parents.  Parents have the responsibility of raising their children–not schools.  Will there be a chance for equal time?  Will there be fact checking?  Will children be asked to report ‘fishy’ behavior on the part of their parents?  This is just too weird for me!

Tuesday’s Investor’s Business Daily posted an article about Toyota closing its NUMMI plant in Fremont, California.  The plant was a hybrid General Motors and Toyota manufacturing facility.

In theory the plant was the type of manufacturing that the Obama Administration supports.  The plant had won 42 environmental awards and 32 product excellence awards.  Most of its 5,500 employees were members of the United Autoworkers Union, making an average of $65,000 a year. According to the article:

“Since 1982, the plant has cranked out more than 5 million vehicles, including the Toyota Corolla, Pontiac Vibe and Geo Prizm.”

What happened?  According to Thomas Lifson, a former Harvard business professor and consultant to two of the top five global auto manufacturers, the excessive ‘green’ rules in California are fine in a thriving economy, but make doing business difficult during a recession.  The cost of doing business in California makes it difficult for business to prosper there.  Toyota has announced that the manufacturing done in Fremont will be moved to San Antonio, Ontario (Canada) and Japan.

The other problem with the plant was union labor.  The article reports:

“The UAW contract is a legacy of its ties to GM. After the government’s takeover of GM ended GM’s role in the plant, Toyota was left with the UAW’s uncompetitive labor costs, which added $500 to the cost of a car and forced it to lay off 4,700 workers.”

This is what happens when government oversteps its control of business.  Corporations, like people, vote with their feet.

As Iran edges closer to becoming a nuclear power, there has been some debate as to what action should be taken to prevent that from happening.  There has been speculation for a while as to whether or not Israel will respond with a military strike.  I do think it’s fairly obvious at this point that American will not respond with a military strike, and there are some questions as to whether we will block airspace in the Middle East to prevent Israel from hitting Iran’s nuclear facilities.

The seemingly ‘easy’ answer to the problem is some sort of severe economic sanctions.  Monday’s Wall Street Journal ran an article by John Bolton addressing the issues involved in economic sanctions.  He points out what he considers the main problems in imposing strong sanctions on Iran.  The first problem is the fact that the chances of the UN supporting strong sanctions is very small.  Both Russia and China are unlikely to vote for sanctions due to financial interests in Iran, and either has the power to block them.  Any sanctions imposed are likely to be very weak, as too many western countries are linked economically to Iran–they don’t want to hurt their own economies. 

The Iranian government has also watched the debate on sanctions.  Because they have realized that they are vulnerable in the area of refined petroleum products, they have begun to take steps to remove that vulnerability.  Gasoline prices are rising in Iran for the average consumer (the military will probably still have all the gasoline it needs).  Since the country has large natural gas reserves, they can move to natural gas powered cars fairly easily, thus lessening their dependency on refined petroleum.

Ambassador Bolton points out that sanctions might have worked a number of years ago, but the time for them has passed.  Please read the article, he has a lot of insight into the problem.

This is a local story.  In the grand scheme of things, it really isn’t all that important, but it is an example of how out-of-touch the people who make our laws have become.  This is a picture from today’s Boston Herald:

The person who drives the car is Michael J. Rodrigues, a Westport, Massachusetts lawmaker who voted to hike the state sales and alcohol taxes.  The picture was taken in New Hampshire (where there is no sales tax) over the weekend.

The Herald has the following report by the person who took the picture:

“The witness, who requested anonymity, claimed he approached Rodrigues, noted his State House plate, and asked if he was on personal or official business. Rodrigues, who was loading booze into his car, snapped “mind your own business,” the witness said.  The witness’ account was also posted yesterday on Citizens for Limited Taxation’s Web site.”

It is interesting that this event occurred at the time Massachusetts is attempting to crack down on people who shop in New Hampshire in order to avoid paying Massachusetts sales tax.  

Today’s New York Post posted an opinion piece today suggesting that Charlie Rangel be fired.  Charlie Rangel is head of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.  In the past year, Mr. Rangel has ‘discovered’ large sums of money he neglected to report on the disclosure forms he is required to fill out as a Congressman.  He has made various excuses about forgetting income or having language difficulties, but as yet has not suffered any penalty for his forgetfulness.

Congressman Rangel is now suggesting that fines and penalties be made stricter on average taxpayers who make filing errors or mistakes on their returns.  According to the article:

“The Post’s Charles Hurt reported yesterday that Rangel’s committee seeks to reduce legal defenses and increase fines and penalties on taxpayers undergoing IRS scrutiny for what they assert are innocent errors.

Among other things, Rangel’s bill would even prohibit the IRS from forgiving taxpayers who erred in good faith — though that would be a very generous interpretation of his own tax troubles.”

This is another plank in my platform for term limits.  Admittedly, term limits will not ensure more honest lawmakers, but it will limit the amount of dishonesty they can get away with! 

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article on what has happened in California because the Environmental Protection Agency has cut off the water supply to the San Joaquin Valley.  The area is suffering from a drought made worse by a cut off of the water supply because of possible danger to the delta smelt.  According to the article:

“The state’s water emergency is unfolding thanks to the latest mishandling of the Endangered Species Act. Last December, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued what is known as a “biological opinion” imposing water reductions on the San Joaquin Valley and environs to safeguard the federally protected hypomesus transpacificus, a.k.a., the delta smelt. As a result, tens of billions of gallons of water from mountains east and north of Sacramento have been channelled away from farmers and into the ocean, leaving hundreds of thousands of acres of arable land fallow or scorched. “”

This is another in a long list of examples of what happens when you give the government control over things they know nothing about.  It’s called the Law of Unintended Consequences.  The farm communities in the areas affected have been decimated.  The unemployment rate in some farming towns like Mendota is near 40%.

The article concludes:

“Things in California may have to get so bad that they endanger Democratic Congressional incumbents before Washington wakes up, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Mr. Salazar has said that convening the God Squad would be “admitting failure” in the effort to save the smelt under the Endangered Species Act. Maybe so, but the livelihoods of tens of thousands of humans are also at stake. If the Obama Administration wants to help, it can take up Governor Schwarzenegger’s request that it revisit the two biological opinions that are hanging farmers and farm workers out to dry.” 

My conclusion comes in the form of a few questions.  Is a dustbowl where farmland used to be in any way an environmental asset?  Was the impact of this action taken in consideration before the water stopped flowing?  Is providing food and jobs for people more important than protecting a species which may or may not be endangered?

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports today on the problems of toxic Chinese drywall that has been imported into the United States since 2006 and used in new construction.  The problem is thought to be high levels of sulfur-compound gases being released from the drywall.  The drywall has been used in the construction that followed the hurricane damage along the Gulf coast in 2005 and in other new construction throughout the country.. 

According to the article:

“Attorneys representing homeowners estimate more than 2,000 lawsuits already have been filed in state and federal courts, targeting Chinese, U.S. and German companies, as well as builders, installers, suppliers, distributors and import brokers.

“We expect about 20 manufacturers of Chinese drywall to be involved in these cases,” said Jeremy Alters, an attorney in Miami handling many of the cases. “There is no quality control in this drywall. It’s hard to believe no one knew it was bad. It is destroying homes and it will cost billions.””

There are lawsuits, and hopefully the people who have been hurt by the use of the toxic drywall will be reimbursed for their losses, but there is something else to be seen in this situation.  American products are among the safest in the world.  At times we have overreacted and put restrictions in place that do not need to be there, but for the most part, we get it right.  We need to encourage American manufacturing–not put roadblocks in front of it.  We need reasonable environmental laws that will allow the environment and manufacturing to coexist side-by-side in a way that benfits both.  If we become too strict in our laws concerning manufacturing in this country, we will be importing more products that do not comply with our safety standards and putting Americans at risk.  We are not going to change the lack of safety in overseas products from countries like China; our solution is to become more self-sufficient in meeting our own needs.

The Wall Street Journal ran an article on Sunday by Mary Anastasia O’Grady on what is happening in Honduras.  The current acting president of Honduras, Roberto Micheletti, became president when the former president, Manuel Zelaya, was deposed and exiled from the country. 

This was not a coup.  Honduras has a law imposing term limits on its presidency.  Mr. Zelaya had asked for a referendum to override this law so that he could continue as president.  The courts and the legislature had denied this request.  Ignoring that, Mr. Zelaya had gotten ballots for the referendum from that bastion of democracy Hugo Chavez and was going to proceed with the referendum.  At that point the courts and legislature ordered the military to remove him from office.  They did not want Mr. Zelaya to become ‘president for life’ following the example of his friend Hugo Chavez.

The United States, for whatever reason, has not supported the ousting of Mr. Zelaya.  Our current administration and state department have sided with Hugo Chavez in seeking the reinstatement of Mr. Zelaya.  We have begun to put some very strong pressure on Honduras to do this.  According to the Wall Street Journal article:

“The most recent example of the Obama-style Good Neighbor Policy was the announcement last week that visa services for Hondurans are suspended indefinitely, and that some $135 million in bilateral aid might be cut. But these are only the public examples of its hardball tactics. Much nastier stuff is going on behind the scenes, practiced by a presidency that once promised the American people greater transparency and a less interventionist foreign policy.

“To recap, the Honduran military in June executed a Supreme Court arrest warrant against Mr. Zelaya for trying to hold a referendum on whether he should be able to run for a second term. Article 239 of the Honduran constitution states that any president who tries for a second term automatically loses the privilege of his office. By insisting that Mr. Zelaya be returned to power, the U.S. is trying to force Honduras to violate its own constitution.”

America is working against democracy in this case.  We are in essence trying to stop another country from following its own consitution.  I hope someone in the administration or the state department will reverse course on this.  We are wrong. 

With the dealth of Ted Kenneday, the talk in Massachusetts is of the Kennedy legacy and what it means.  I think I have a different opinion–Barack Obama is not the next Kennedy.  John F. Kennedy was only President for a short time.  He made some mistakes, but he also said and did some very smart things that today’s Democrat Party would be appalled at.

According to Jeff Jacoby in Sunday’s Boston Globe:

“It is a paradoxical truth,” he once told the Economic Club of New York, “that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.” What he had in mind, he said, was “an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes.”

Those were not the words of Senator Edward Kennedy. The speaker – in December 1962 – was President John F. Kennedy, and his ringing call for tax cuts was no anomaly.”

Jeff Jacoby also reports:

“Senator Hubert Humphrey vowed that if anyone could find anything in the 1964 Civil Rights Bill that would compel hiring on the basis of race, “I will start eating the pages one after another.” In a 1963 press conference, President Kennedy explicitly opposed racial preferences: “We are too mixed, this society of ours, to begin to divide ourselves on the basis of race or color.'”‘

The article further points out:

“JFK likewise spoke for mainstream Democrats when he asserted that America would “pay any price, bear any burden” to advance freedom and democracy in the world. He was a hawk who pressed for higher defense spending and American military superiority. The Democratic Party of more recent years – the party of “come home, America” and the nuclear freeze – was one he wouldn’t have recognized.”

I used to be a Democrat.  If the Democrat party still stood for the ideas expressed above–low taxes, color-blind civil rights, and the support of democracy around the world, I would still be one.

There seem to be some real questions about global warming (or climate change) and what causes it.  If the Cap and Trade Bill passes, we will be spending millions of dollars (out of the pockets of every American) to solve a problem we are not totally sure exists.  I am all in favor of reducing pollution, but I am also in favor of common sense in dealing with the problem.

Jonah Goldberg posted an article in the Los Angeles Times today about sunspots.  It seems that if we have no sunspots today, we will have gone fifty-three days without a ‘solar blemish,’ breaking a ninety-six year old record.  According to the article:

“During what scientist call the Maunder Minimum — a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 — the world experienced the worst of the cold streak dubbed the Little Ice Age. At Christmastime, Londoners ice skated on the Thames, and New Yorkers (then New Amsterdamers) sometimes walked over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.”

This is not something I want to see at all!  On the subject of global warming, the article points out:

“MIT’s Richard Lindzen says that “there has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995.””

I’m sure it is coincidence that many of the people pushing for the Cap and Trade Bill own part or all of companies that trade in carbon credits.  There will be millions made by a small group of people if this bill passes.  I personally like the idea I heard from someone who was offering to let people pay him $5 not to take a shower (his own contribution to carbon credits).  I think it’s time to step back and take a breath before we do something very expensive that may not have any relationship to a problem we may not have.

The Hill is reporting today that Massachusetts has scheduled a special election for January 19th to fill Edward Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat.  The question of whether there will be an interim appointment is still up in the air.  According to the article:

“Despite his endorsement, the governor acknowledged the fate of Kennedy’s request ultimately rests with the state legislature, which is currently away on recess. Although House and Senate lawmakers agreed today to expedite hearings on the proposal, Patrick emphasized during the press conference that the bill’s passage was all but certain.

“On the merits, the proposal seems to me reasonable and wise,” Patrick said. “I hope the members of the legislature, regardless of party affiliation, will see that too, and consider utmost the needs of our citizens to be represented in Washington over the next five months.””

According to the facebook page of Michele McPhee, a local radio talkshow host:

“…Jeremy Gillis (is) the Town Clerk in Easton,and a member of the Executive Board of the Mass Town Clerks Association. He writes: Over the past week, clerks have been reaching out to the governor asking that the date of January 19th not be chosen…, as it fell the day after a federal holiday, the financial implications of having 2 elections is bad enough…it goes on to say the Dems “made this mess.” Idiots.”

By having the election on the day after a federal holiday, the people who set up the polls have to be paid holiday wages.  This greatly increases the cost of the election.  It will be interesting to see how this all works out.  It is my belief that there will be an appointment by the governor to fill the seat, but all bets are off as to who will be appointed.

Today’s Boston Globe is reporting that Tedy Bruschi announced his retirement today after playing in the National Football League for thirteen years.  Normally I don’t do football stories, but this man is a class act.  He is known locally as a wonderful example of a family man and a man with a fantastic work ethic.  He has played for the New England Patriots during the entire thirteen years of his football career. 

According to the article, Coach Belichick said:

“I’ve coached a lot of great players, and Tedy is up there with all of them . . . above them,” said Belichick, who remarked that Bruschi always did the right thing on and off the field. “He’s the epitome of everything you would want in a football player . . . I don’t think I’ve ever seen a player do what he’s done.

“How do I sum it up? How do I feel about Tedy Bruschi in five seconds? He’s a perfect player. He’s helped create a tradition here we’re all proud of. He’s a perfect player. He’s a perfect player.”

“That’s something you’ll never hear during your career,” Bruschi said as he and Belichick laughed. “To have him say that to me is probably the best compliment he could ever give me.””

Best wishes to Mr. Bruschi in whatever he chooses to do in the future.  With his fantastic work ethic, I am sure he will be extremely successful in whatever he does.

On Friday, Investor’s Business Daily posted a commentary on the fact that America has decided not to install a missle defense system in Poland because of Russian objections.  I am truly sorry to hear this.  First of all, this was a promise made to Poland before President Obama took office; to break that promise raises the question of whether promises made by America will be honored after an election.  Secondly, with Iran about to go nuclear, it is in everyone’s best interest to have missle shields in place to avoid nuclear blackmail.  Thirdly, why are we letting the Russians dictate American foreign policy?

The editorial points out:

“This is a stark reversal of past policy and reneges on promises made by the current administration. Worse, it shows weakness. We got into a staredown with the Russian bear and we blinked.

“President Obama has vowed to support missile defense, provided it was “pragmatic and cost-effective.” Well, the Congressional Budget Office rated the system going into Poland and the Czech Republic as the most effective of the alternatives.

“As for promises to our allies, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just this month said the U.S. would offer our allies a “defense umbrella” against threats from a possible Iranian nuclear weapon.

“Now, all that high-sounding defense rhetoric is out the window.”

What we are seeing now is the action of a very inexperienced and naive president and state department.  Theoretically, because we have agreed not to put up the missle shield, Russia has agreed to help us deal with the problem of Iran having nuclear weapons.  I don’t like being cynical, but I just don’t see that happening.

Congressman Charles Rangel had added a new dimension to the expression ‘found money.’  The Wall Street Journal posted an article on Friday about Congressman Rangel’s latest financial difficulties.  Unlike you and me, to whom the definition of a financial difficulty would be owing money, Congressman Rangel’s financial difficulty is finding an extra one million dollars or so that he had neglected to report on his Congressional Financial Disclosure Form.  Wow, all of us should have those problems (not the neglecting to report–just the finding part!).

The article reports:

“Among other issues, Mr. Rangel is currently under investigation regarding his use of four rent-stabilized apartments at New York City’s tony Lenox Terrace and soliciting donations with his official letterhead for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York, which was itself built with a $1.9 million earmark. Yet another part of the probe is his failure to report $75,000 in income from a rental villa at the beachfront Punta Cana Yacht Club, in the Dominican Republic.

“Mr. Rangel blamed that last one on the language barrier because he doesn’t speak Spanish. We can only imagine what language he speaks with his accountants and tax attorneys.”

Congressman Rangel is the Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee.  That is the Committee that oversees tax law.  Shouldn’t he also be required to follow tax law?

It’s time for the Democrat Party to be the ethical people they claim to be and remove Congressman Rangel from Congress.  

I understand that politics sometimes can get heated and that sometimes we disagree on things with our elected representatives and vice versa.  However, manners are important, and bullying is out of place in any circumstance.  There is also some wisdom in what your mother taught you–if you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything.  Well, some basic rules of how to treat people were broken in Las Vegas last week.  I guess that’s not a shock, but here’s the story.

Senator Harry Reid was speaking at the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce luncheon.  Before his speech, Reid joined the chamber’s board members for a meet-‘n’-greet and a photo.  Bob Brown, the Review Journal director of advertising was one of the people in line.  The report of this luncheon in the Review Journal includes the following:

“Yet, as Bob shook hands with our senior U.S. senator in what should have been nothing but a gracious business setting, Reid said: “I hope you go out of business.”

Later, in his public speech, Reid said he wanted to let everyone know that he wants the Review-Journal to continue selling advertising because the Las Vegas Sun is delivered inside the Review-Journal.”

How rude!  Newspapers are there to report news.  They also editorialize and have editorial views, that is also part of their job.  To be so rude to an advertising salesman who is not even involved in the writing of the newspaper is ignorant and inexcusable. 

It’s time to send Mr. Reid home from Congress so that he can remember that he is supposed to represent all the people in his state and also brush up on his manners!

The Washington Times ran a commentary by Cal Thomas this morning on the decision to investigate the CIA’s interrogation policies after 911.  Mr. Thomas points out that up until now, anyone who disrupted a terrorist plot was regarded as a hero, now that person will be put under investigation and possibly charged with a criminal act. 

The article quotes Senator Joseph Lieberman:

“Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent, one of the few liberals who comprehends what we face, issued a statement: “I respectfully regret the decision by Attorney General Holder and fear our country will come to regret it too because an open ended criminal investigation of past CIA activity, which has already been condemned and prohibited, will have a chilling effect on the men and women agents of our intelligence community whose uninhibited bravery and skill we depend on every day to protect our homeland from the next terrorist attack.””

I don’t consider it a coincidence that Eric Holder’s former law firm is representing many of the terrorists at Guantanamo as they seek freedom.  Meanwhile, the Obama Administration Justice Department has chosen to overlook the violation of voting rights that occurred when Black Panthers stood outside Philadephia voting places with billy clubs intimidating voters.  Despite the fact that there is a video of their actions up on YouTube, they will not be prosecuted.

According to the Washington Times yesterday, the Justice Department will not pursue a criminal case against Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico.  We might remember that Bill Richardson was running in the Democrat Presidential Primary against Barack Obama.  He dropped out of the race in January 2008 and endorsed President Obama in March 2008.  Mr. Richardson was originally nominated to be Commerce Secretary in President Obama’s cabinet, but withdrew his name because of the federal grand jury into his actions. 

It seems that our justice department has forgotten the concept of equal justice under the law.  The move to investigate the CIA will hurt us in the war on terror, the question is how much.

Today is the fourth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  At the time of the hurricane, my oldest daughter, her husband, and their children and cats were living in New Orleans.  I will never forget the early Sunday morning phone call that told me they were on the road heading for my sister’s house in Tennessee.  Little did any of us know that they would not be back in their house until two days before Thanksgiving–they were some of the lucky ones.  Their next door neighbors did not get into their house until the following spring.

I was in New Orleans the summer following the hurricane and then again in late October.  The difference in the city in those six months was amazing.  The city was gradually coming back to life.  There were problems staffing some of the restaurants because there was a shortage of housing, but the city was coming back–the zoo and the aquarium had reopened and some of the restaurants in Jackson Square were up and running.

The people of New Orleans have shown amazing courage in rebuilding their city.  I wish the people of that great city the best as they continue in their task.  There are many good books written about the hurricane and its aftermath.  I just finished one called SUGARCANE ACADEMY, which dealt with the creative way that a group of people made sure some of the children evacuated had a good education while they waited for the schools to get reestablished. 

My children still own their house down there, although the military has moved them elsewhere.  I look forward to the day they will be back in New Orleans and I can visit them again.

Bloomberg.com reported yesterday that the United Arab Emirates seized a North Korean ship carrying weapons to Iran.  The cargo included explosives, detonators, and rocket-propelled grenades.  According to the article:

“The UAE two weeks ago notified the UN Security Council of the seizure, according to the diplomats, who spoke on condition they aren’t named because the communication hasn’t been made public. They said the ship, owned by an Australian subsidiary of a French company and sailing under a Bahamian flag, was carrying 10 containers of arms disguised as oil equipment.”

President Obama has set the end of September as the date for Iran to respond to his request for new talks regarding its uranium enrichment program.  Iran claims to working on proposals for those talks.

It seems to me that this is an indication that what President Bush referred to as the ‘axis of evil’ has not changed its tune.  I sincerely hope that we do not negotiate with Iran–it is obvious that our negotiations with North Korea have brought us nothing but trouble, and I see no reason to believe that negotiations with Iran would be any different.

The Alliance Defense Fund, an alliance of Christian attorneys formed for the purpose of defending First Amendment rights, is defending the right of a New Hampshire mother to homeschool her 10-year-old daughter.  According to the article:

…”the court agreed the child is “well liked, social and interactive with her peers, academically promising, and intellectually at or superior to grade level” and that “it is clear that the home schooling…has more than kept up with the academic requirements of the…public school system,” he nonetheless proposed that the Christian girl be ordered into a government-run school after considering “the impact of [her religious] beliefs on her interaction with others.””

The court has ordered the girl to attend a government-run school in Meredith.  The court also stated:

“In the process of renegotiating the terms of a parenting plan for the girl, the guardian ad litem involved in the case concluded, according to the court order, that the girl “appeared to reflect her mother’s rigidity on questions of faith” and that the girl’s interests “would be best served by exposure to a public school setting” and “different points of view at a time when she must begin to critically evaluate multiple systems of belief…in order to select, as a young adult, which of those systems will best suit her own needs.””

There are a few things about this case that bother me.  Why is it necessary to move a child out of an academic and social setting where she is thriving?  Who brought this case?  Is this a matter of a non-custodial parent trying to create a problem that isn’t there?  The only thing that is clear in this case is that parents should be free to educate their children as they see fit as long as the children are meeting the academic and social requirements legally established by state law.  Since this is obviously the case, I don’t think the fact that the child has a strong sense of morality should be a problem–it seems to me as the child approaches her teenage years that might be a blessing!

CNET News posted an article today on the beginning of curbing freedom of speech on the internet.  The bill, S.773, includes the following according to Thomas.gov:

“Directs the Secretary to develop or coordinate a national licensing, certification, and recertification program for cybersecurity professionals and makes it unlawful to provide certain cybersecurity services without being licensed and certified.

“Requires Advisory Panel approval for renewal or modification of a contract related to the operation of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority.

“Requires development of a strategy to implement a secure domain name addressing system.

“Requires the National Science Foundation (NSF) to support specified types of research and to establish a program of grants to higher education institutions to establish cybersecurity testbeds.

“Amends the Cybersecurity Research and Development Act to expand the purposes of an existing program of computer and network security research grants.

“Requires the NSF to establish a Federal Cyber Scholarship-for-Service program.

“Requires NIST to establish cybersecurity competitions and challenges to recruit talented individuals for the federal information technology workforce and stimulate innovation.”

I’m not very good at interpreting gobbelty gook, but the bottom line here seems obvious to me–the government wants control over the internet.  I firmly believe that if President Obama’s healthcare bill is defeated, there will be an attack on freedom of speech in talk radio and the internet, and cable news will attacked shortly thereafter.  All of us who value freedom of speech need to be aware of what is happening around us and ready to combat it.

Yesterday’s Washington Times posted a story yesterday about Rifqa Bary, the teenager from Ohio who converted from Islam to Christianity then fled to Florida because she feared for her life.  When this news story broke recently, I was not sure what the situation was or what the media coverage would be.  The Washington Post, however, has posted some of the details of the story that I haven’t seen anywhere else.

Mohamed and Aysha Bary, Rifqa’s parents, declared themselves indigent and were given court-appointed lawyers paid for by the taxpayers, but Mr. Bary reported to Dun and Bradstreet that his business does $237,561 yearly.  Mr Bary dissolved his business on July 29, after hearing of his daugher’s conversion to Christianity.  He was planning to move the family back to Sri Lanka. 

I have a few questions.  Why are the taxpayers paying for a lawyer for someone who just sold a business worth $237,561 yearly?  Does anyone honestly believe that Rifqa would have been safe in Sri Lanka?  Thank God the courts did not send her back to her parents!!

We have had honor killings in America.  The murder of Aasiya Zubair Hassan , who was beheaded by her husband in Buffalo, New York, early this year is an example of one.  She was seeking to divorce her husband at the time she was murdered. In my limited experience with Muslims, I have met a woman who had to have her identity changed because she had left an abusive marriage and her brother was trying to find her to kill her because she had disgraced the family.  In America, murder is illegal and you go to jail for it.  That is probably the reason Mr. Bary was planning to move the family back to Sri Lanka.

I have no objection to Muslims practicing their religion in America, but where the culture of that religion clashes with American law, the law must prevail.  I am very glad that the courts made the right decision in this case.

The current law in Massachusetts says that if a Senate seat becomes vacant during a Senator’s tenure, a special election must be held no sooner than 145 days and no later than 160 days after a vacancy occurs.  This law was passed in 2004 when John Kerry was running for President and Mitt Romney was the governor of the state (a Republican).  Up until that point, the governor would appoint a replacement to fill the seat until the end of the term.

The New York Post posted a story today about the jockeying for Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat that is currently going on in the state.  The Boston Herald also ran a similar story today.  I have a prediction–it’s really not a very dramatic one–it’s pretty obvious.  Governor Patrick will sign a law that allows him to appoint a Senator from Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat.  That person will vote for healthcare reform.  The laws of the State of Massachusetts will be changed to accommodate the Democrat political desire of the moment.  This is obscene!

Yesterday, CBS News reported a small provision on the healthcare bill that might have been overlooked so far in the debate:

“Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.” “

Great.  More people with access to our personal financial information.  Along similar lines, on July 14, 2009, Slate posted an article on the risks of using Social Security numbers for identification.  The article reminds us that:

“Ten years after the SSN debuted, the feds added a clarification to the card in capital letters: “FOR SOCIAL SECURITY PURPOSES–NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION.” By that point, it was already too late. Three years earlier, President Franklin Roosevelt had issued an executive order allowing other federal agencies to use SSNs rather than launch their own systems. Within 20 years, the IRS, the Civil Service Commission, and the military were all using the numbers to identify people.”

The advantage of using a Social Security number for identification is obvious–it is a unique number that theoretically will attach to only one person–but it was not originally intended for identification–it just evolved into that.  What sort of monster will this healthcare system morph into if another branch of government is given free access to the financial records of American citizens.  This gives new meaning to the joking description of the new healthcare plan as “All the compassion of the IRS with the efficiency of the Post Office!”

The Corner at National Review has a post today by Andrew McCarthy about the Obama Administration’s policy toward terrorism.  Mr. McCarthy quotes a Wall Street Journal article which listed the successes of enhanced interrogation:

“The most revealing portion of the IG report documents the program’s results. The CIA’s “detention and interrogation of terrorists has provided intelligence that has enabled the identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world.” That included the identification of Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed, who planned to detonate a dirty bomb, and the arrest of previously unknown members of an al Qaeda cell in Karachi, Pakistan, designated to pilot an aircraft attack in the U.S. The information also made the CIA aware of plots to attack the U.S. consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow, loosen track spikes to derail a U.S. train, blow up U.S. gas stations, fly an airplane into a California building, and cut the lines of suspension bridges in New York.”

This report mentions the name Binyam Muhammed (who was planning to detonate a dirty bomb).   Mr. McCarthy points out that Binyam Mohammed was released outright by the Obama administration in February. He is now living freely in England. 

Mr. McCarthy’s evaluation of the situation:

“…Release the terrorist who planned mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities but investigate the CIA agents who prevented mass-murder attacks against U.S. cities. I suppose that’s what happens when control of the Justice Department shifts from the lawyers who spent the last eight years going after the terrorists to the lawyers who spent the last eight years representing the terrorists. That certainly is Change.”

Just for the record, Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York.  He led the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others for the bombing of the World Trade Center.  He has been involved in many areas of anti-terrorism since the 1990’s.