I have no idea who wrote this.  If I find out, I will credit them.  But I love it!!!

The Haircut

One day a florist goes to a barber for a haircut. After the cut he asked
about his bill and the barber replies, “I cannot accept money from you.  I’m
doing community service this week.

“The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber goes to open
his shop the next morning there is a ‘thank you’ card and a dozen roses
waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the
barber again replies, “I cannot accept money from you. I’m doing community
service this week.” The cop is happy and leaves the shop.

The next morning when the barber goes to open up there is a ‘thank you’
card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Later that day, a college professor comes in for a haircut, and when he
tries to pay his bill, the barber again replies, “I cannot accept money from
you. I’m doing community service this week.”  The professor is very happy
and leaves the shop. The next morning when the barber opens his shop, there
is a ‘thank you’ card and a dozen different books, such as “How to Improve
Your Business” and “Becoming More Successful.

“Then, a Congressman comes in for a haircut, and when he goes to pay his
bill the barber again replies, “I cannot accept money from you. I’m doing
community service this week.” The Congressman is very happy and leaves the
shop. The next morning when the barber goes to open up, there are a dozen
Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.

And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the
citizens of our country and the members of our Congress

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted some figures on how the stimulus money is being spent in the state of New Hampshire.  New Hampshire received $416 million dollars in stimulus money.  With it, they created 50 jobs–34 of them full time jobs. 

According to the article:

“The Office of Legislative Budget Assistant reported last week that $413.6 million made its way to the state under a list of programs that involve education, highways, environmental, health and human services, energy and law enforcement. …

So far, a total of 50 jobs have been created by the funding, 34 of them full time. The OES will be headed by a director whom Gov. John Lynch has not yet appointed. All five OES jobs are described as full-time temporary positions that will go out of existence in September 2011, the end of the federal fiscal year.”

I guess my question is simple–if this money had been given to small business in the form of tax cuts, how would the outcome have differed?  The stimulus money is not a permanent thing–when the money runs out, the jobs go away.  Would it not have been better to put the money in the hands of small business–they hire people and the people they hire spend money.  Also, it doesn’t cost small business $8.32 million per job!  Please follow the link in the first paragraph of this post and read the entire article.  The amount of waste in this program is frightening.

Why in the world would we want to let people with this kind of fiscal incompetence run a national healthcare program?

The main link for this article is a Power Line post from yesterday, but the Power Line post links to a Michael Ledeen article at Pajamas Media entitled “I’ll Give You Dozens of Terrorists, You Give Me One Journalist, OK?”.  According to both articles, this is the story we are not being told:

“In early May, the deal was arranged: more than thirty Iranian “VIP” detainees would be released (first to the Iraqis, then to the Iranians), and then, in the fullness of time, several hundred (repeat, several hundred) others of less importance. Within days, Iraqi leader Maliki flew to Iran to work out the details. Saberi was quickly released, and the triumphal return to Iran for the Five was scheduled for shortly after the Iranian elections.”

If this is in fact true, it is diplomacy at the expense of the lives of American soldiers.  Not only are we trading terrorists for journalists, we are realeasing from prison the people who are responsible for making and smuggling into Iraq the particular type of Improvised Explosive Device (IED) that has been most effective in killing American soldiers.

Please read the article at Pajamas Media–Mr. Ledeen goes into detail as to exactly what was involved in the decision to make the hostage-prisoner trade.  We need to learn from the Israelis–they don’t negotiate with terrorists.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has posted an article about the CIA plan to capture or kill al Qaeda operatives which was ended by Director Leon Panetta when he took charge of the agency..  According to the article:

“According to current and former government officials, the agency spent money on planning and possibly some training. It was acting on a 2001 presidential legal pronouncement, known as a finding, which authorized the CIA to pursue such efforts. The initiative hadn’t become fully operational at the time Mr. Panetta ended it.”

I’m a little confused by all this ruckus.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is citing the plan as an example of the fact that the CIA kept information from Congress.  Let’s consider two facts, one, the plan never actually reached a point where it was going to be implemented, and two, Congress has had some leakage problems in national security areas.  The first fact makes the briefing of Congress unneccessary, and the second fact makes briefing Congress a risk to national security.  This is another example of the House Speaker trying to blame the CIA for the fact that she approved of waterboarding.

I seem to remember that one of the charges by the Democrats against George W. Bush was that he hadn’t yet caught Osama Bin Laden.  This is a November 16, 2008, quote from Barack Obama from MSNBC:

“In his first television interview since his historic election, Obama said he has spent the days since the election on short- and long-term issues, from doing “whatever it takes” to stabilize the economy, restore consumer confidence and create jobs, to getting sound health care and energy policies through Congress. The president-elect also said that as soon as he takes office he will work with his security team and the military to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq, shore up Afghanistan and “stamp out al-Qaida once and for all.””

So why was the program to ‘stamp our al-Qaida once and for all’ shut down, and why is Congress screaming that they were not informed of a program that was never implemented?  This is another example of politics being more important than national security.  If you beleive that the program needed to be stopped, that is fine, but then why does Congress need to know about everything the CIA decides not to do?  If you believe the program would have been valid in ending terrorism, why was it stopped?  You can’t have it both ways. 

Climate Depot posted an article on Friday quoting Al Gore speaking on July 7, 2009, in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment, sponsored by UK Times.  The article states:

“Gore touted the Congressional climate bill, claiming it “will dramatically increase the prospects for success” in combating what he sees as the “crisis” of man-made global warming.

“But it is the awareness itself that will drive the change and one of the ways it will drive the change is through global governance and global agreements.” (Editor’s Note: Gore makes the “global governance” comment at the 1min. 10 sec. mark in this UK Times video.)”

 

Global governance?  What exactly does that mean?  I personally like American governance. 

President Obama (along with Congress) agreed at the recent G8 to keep the earth’s temperature from rising more than 2 degrees centigrade.  Wow, what power!!  When did we attain the ability to control the earth’s temperature–we can’t even predict the weather for next weeks baseball games.

The article also states:

The environmental group Friends of the Earth advocated the transfer of money from rich to poor nations during the 2007 UN climate conference.

“A climate change response must have at its heart a redistribution of wealth and resources,” said Emma Brindal, a climate justice campaigner coordinator for Friends of the Earth.

So fixing climate problems is just a matter of taking money from Americans and giving to the poorer countries of the world.  I hope someone in Congress has the brains to see this scheme for what it is and stop the Cap and Trade Bill.

Today’s New York Post has an article about a change in State Department policy that reverses a longstanding policy requiring foreign governments to pay taxes on some diplomatic residences.  Needless to say, New York City is being hit hard by this change–it will cost the city roughly $260 million in back taxes in addition to any future revenue.  (What about all the unpaid parking tickets?)   As the junior senator from New York State, Hillary supported the right of the city to collect taxes from foreign governments, as Secretary of State, she has changed the policy.

The article points out:

Patrick Kennedy, undersecretary of state for management, said the rules change comes because other countries do not apply similar taxes on US properties overseas, which include Army bases, FBI offices and State Department housing.

“Those countries have come to us and said, ‘Wait a minute. Why is New York taxing us when we don’t tax you?’ ” he said.

“This has become a diplomatic irritant. They’ve held up activity at those locations, not given us building permits.”

Kennedy acknowledged that New York has more diplomatic housing than any other city in the nation.

But he insisted, “New York gets a lot of benefits from having these here.”

We don’t pay taxes on our military bases and diplomatic property overseas.  What is the actual value of those properties?  Are the military bases a boon to the economies and defense of the countries in which they are located?  What are the property taxes of the countries in question?  Do they have property taxes?

New York City has some of the most expensive real estate in the world (with high taxes).   If you read this blog regularly, you know that I am not a big supporter of the UN.  You also know that UN diplomats park illegally in New York City on a regular basis, tie up traffic, and don’t pay their traffic tickets.  Now we are exempting them from taxes?  If someone owns property in New York City (other than churches–which by law are property tax exempt), he should pay taxes on it.  If you don’t want to pay the taxes–rent!!!

 Larry Kudlow, the host of CNBC’s Kudlow & Company, has posted an article at Townhall.com  about the impact of the Obama Administration’s economic policies.

Mr. Kudlow points out that the increases in taxes, spending, and regulation are causing the United States to become less competitive in the world market.  China has been moving in the direction of free-market capitalism as we have been moving away from it. 

Mr Kudlow points out:

“Heavy government controls at home, along with an income-leveling social policy couched in economic-recovery terms, is no way to run a railroad. At the simple stroke of a computer key, world investment flows to its most hospitable destination. That includes a reliable currency. But in President Bush’s last year and President Obama’s first, the U.S. has become a less-hospitable destination for global capital. That should worry everybody.”

The article traces the growth of China as a world economic power.  They have increased the number of companies in the Fortune 500 list of top companies in the world, while American companies are disappearing from the list.  China has no capital gains tax, and it has a low corporate tax.  President Obama will probably increase both those taxes for Americans.

Mr. Kudlow concludes:

“Year-to-date, Dow Jones stocks are off 8 percent, while China stocks are up 71 percent. The world index is up 4 percent. Emerging markets are up 25 percent. They’re all beating us. None of this is good.

We’re going the wrong way. That’s why stock markets are not voting for the United States anymore.”

We need to look at the things that grow an ecomony and the things that slow down the growth and reevaluate the direction that we are heading. 

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has posted an article on the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision to force pharmacies to stock and to sell the ‘morning after’ pill.  Regardless of how you feel about this particular medicine, think about the government intrusion here.  If abortion is against your religious belief and you are a pharmacist, you will be forced to sell something that is against your religion.  Where is your religious freedom?  If you are the business owner, the government is telling you what products you must sell.

According to the article, the legal case, brought by family-owned Ralph’s Thriftway and two pharmacists employed elsewhere, has developed as follows

“Ralph’s owners, Stormans Inc., and pharmacists Rhonda Mesler and Margo Thelen sought protection under the 1st Amendment right to free exercise of religion and won a temporary injunction from the U.S. District Court in Seattle pending trial on the constitutionality of the regulations. That order prevented state officials from penalizing pharmacists who refused to dispense Plan B as long as they referred consumers to a nearby pharmacy where it was available.

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the injunction, saying the district court was wrong in issuing it based on an erroneous finding that the rules violated the free exercise of religion clause of the U.S. Constitution.”

The Ninth Circuit is the most overturned appellate court in this country.  Hopefully, they will be overturned on this ruling.  Freedom of religion is part of the foundations of our government.  When you begin to remove the foundation of something, it collapses.

The Weekly Standard has posted an article entitled “On Top of a Volcano” by Reuel Marc Gerecht, a WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor, and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.  The article talks about the sudden disappearances of those people who were involved in the recent demonstrations against the election fraud in Iran. 

The article talks about the history of Iran and the fact that the current mullahs have avoided the mistakes the shah made when he was overthrown.  The mullahs controlled a number of different security forces, some possibly of foreign origin, and ordered them to shoot to kill the protestors.  Their reaction to the protests was to tighten their control–they did not leave room for a revolution.  The family of the beautiful young lady who was shot early in the demonstrations was denied a proper funeral service and the government promptly moved them out of the apartment building where they had been living.

The article believes that we are seeing the beginning of Iran’s struggle for democracy, but makes no estimate of when that struggle will end.  The article concludes:

The president would be well served to read again The 9/11 Commission Report about Iranian and Lebanese Hezbollah’s contact with al Qaeda (see pp. 240-241). This outreach probably started under President Clinton. September 11 and George W. Bush’s bellicosity made Khamenei pull back from Sunni jihadists. It’s a very good bet that the supreme leader, Ahmadinejad, and Rafsanjani, who has always been a fan of outreach to Sunni militants, are already hunting for foreign partners who hate the United States as much as they do. (There is a reason beyond uranium exports why Tehran loves Hugo Chávez.) Once they are backed by nuclear weapons, it’s hard to see what the leaders of the Islamic republic would fear from an American president who avoids the word jihad when describing 9/11 for fear of offending Muslim sensitivities.

President Bush was right to include Iran in what he referred to as “The Axis of Evil”.  Iran has not changed.  It’s a shame the current US President is not willing to build on the wisdom of his predecessor, but instead is repeating the mistakes of the Jimmy Carter administration. 

There are two articles posted this morning on Barack Obama’s stimulus plan and its success (or lack thereof).  One is at Bloomberg.com and the other is at the Washington Times.  President Obama stated in his Saturday radio address that the economic stimulus is working as planned.  I’m afraid I don’t see this as a valid statement.

According to Bloomberg:

“Obama spoke after stocks fell for a fourth week on concern that an economic recovery will be delayed. A government report last week showed that employers cut 467,000 jobs in June and the unemployment rate rose to 9.5 percent, the highest since 1983.”

According to the Washington Post:

In the Republican radio response, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, said Americans are right to question Mr. Obama’s spending bill.

“Remember the promises? They promised you if you paid for their stimulus, jobs would be created immediately. In fact, they said that unemployment would stay under eight percent. Yet just months later, they are telling us to brace for unemployment to climb over ten percent,” he said.

He said Republicans’ plan is to cut taxes to boost the economy.

But Mr. Obama said Republicans opposed him from the start, and haven’t offered a real plan.

He also took aim at those in his own party who say the first bill has fallen short and are calling for another round of spending, telling them spending will pick up later this year.

The evidence shows that the stimulus package did not really change anything (other than the national debt).  The Washington Post article points out that a large percentage of the stimulus money went to areas with low unemployment that supported President Obama during the presidential campaign rather than the areas hardest hit by the recession.  It’s about time we held this Administration and Congress responsible for the out of control spending. 

Please watch this You Tube video of the Inspector General who is supposed to be auditing the Federal Reserve.  Remember that Gerald Walpin was fired for doing his job in investigating someone with close ties to the Obama Administration (see Right Wing Granny post of July 3, 2009).  The bottom line of this video at You Tube is that no one is keeping track of what is going on at the Federal Reserve.  The Federal Reserve has been a major player in the current financial crisis–they have decided who to bail out and who to let fail.  They have also received and loaned out trillions of dollars.  This is well beyond thier intended role.  We need to know who is minding the store.

Investor’s Business Daily posted an analysis piece yesterday on the roots of the current financial situation.  A Congressional Report on the financial crisis has been released by Representative Darrell Issa of California, ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  The report details the government’s role in politicizing housing.  The article gives a short, pointed summary, here are some of the highlights:

• With an implicit subsidy to American homeowners in the form of reduced mortgage rates, Fannie Mae and its sister government sponsored enterprise, Freddie Mac, squeezed out their competition and cornered the secondary mortgage market. They took advantage of a $2.25 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.

• Congress, by statute, allowed them to operate with much lower capital requirements than private-sector competitors. They “used their congressionally-granted advantages to leverage themselves in excess of 70-to-1.”

• Encouraged by an inaccurate 1992 Boston Federal Reserve Bank study charging racial discrimination in mortgage lending, the two GSEs were strongly pressured to “lower their underwriting standards, particularly on the size of down payments and the credit quality of borrowers.”

• In 1992, Congress directed HUD to establish multiple quotas requiring mortgage quotes for low-income families.

• In 1995, the Clinton administration issued a National Homeownership Strategy, loosening Fannie and Freddie’s lending standards and insisting that lenders “work collaboratively to reduce homebuyer downpayment requirements.”

• In 2006, Freddie paid the largest fine in Federal Election Commission history for improperly using corporate resources to hold 85 fundraisers for congressmen, raising a total of $1.7 million.

These are only some of the highlights.  Please read the entire article to see how we got here.  We need to take a look at which Congressmen backed these laws and make sure those Congressmen never get elected again!

My two sources for this article are Power Line and National Review.  Both have posts today about the release of five Iranian ‘diplomats’ in Iraq.  These are not diplomats–they are Quds Force commanders from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) who were coordinating terrorist attacks in Iraq that have killed hundreds — yes, hundreds — of American soldiers and Marines.  Releasing them puts American soldiers at risk and also is a threat to the stability of the government of Iraq.  I guess President Obama is hoping no one will notice.

The National Review article is written by Andrew McCarthy and lists five things we need to know about the ‘diplomats’ released:

1.  First, of the 4,322 Americans killed in combat in Iraq since 2003, 10 percent of them (i.e., more than 400) have been murdered by a single type of weapon alone, a weapon that is supplied by Iran for the singular purpose of murdering Americans.  These weapons were designed by the IRGC.

2.  President Bush and our armed forces steadfastly refused demands by Iran and Iraq’s Maliki government for the release of the Irbil Five because Iran was continuing to coordinate terrorist operations against American forces in Iraq (and to aid Taliban operations against American forces in Afghanistan).  Now that these men are released, they can continue where they left off.

3.  Obama’s decision to release the five terror-masters comes while the Iranian regime (a) is still conducting operations against Americans in Iraq, even as we are in the process of withdrawing, and (b) is clearly working to replicate its Lebanon model in Iraq: establishing a Shiite terror network, loyal to Iran, as added pressure on the pliant Maliki to understand who is boss once the Americans leave.   This is not what America or Iraq wants or needs.

4.  President Obama’s release of the Quds terrorists is a natural continuation of his administration’s stunningly irresponsible policy of bartering terrorist prisoners for hostages.  The National Review article has the details on this charge.

5.  When it comes to Iran, it has become increasingly apparent that President Obama wants the mullahs to win. What you need to know is that Barack Obama is a wolf in “pragmatist” clothing: Beneath the easy smile and above-it-all manner — the “neutral” doing his best to weigh competing claims — is a radical leftist wedded to a Manichean vision that depicts American imperialism as the primary evil in the world.

It really is time to take a hard look at the policies of this President.  He has just endangered American troops in order to smooth relations with a tyrannical dictatorship.  What is really sad is that the America press has not called him on it.  Is anyone minding the store? 
 

Joe Biden has been known in Washington circles for years as a man with an uncanny ability to put his foot firmly in his mouth.  Sometimes he just really has a way with words.

Today’s Los Angeles Times has a short article about the number of private meetings Vice President Biden has held recently.  The article points out:

“And we’ve wondered aloud how this Democratic VP’s private meetings with unnamed people on unnamed subjects differs from the private meetings with unnamed people that his evil predecessor had that got so many Democratic senators and representatives worried about nefarious secrets.”

The article states that the Vice President’s office is describing many of his meetings as not ‘private that are closed press’, but simply as ‘closed press’.  It’s good to know that the Vice President is not having any more private meetings.  It is also encouraging to know that the Vice President’s staff is as language-challenged as some of the rest of us! 

Today’s Wall Street Journal has the ongoing saga of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the CIA.  You may remember when the issue of waterboarding originally came up, Senator Pelosi denied knowing that it had been used.  She later changed her story to say that she had been informed, but only that it was being considered.  She then accused the CIA of lying when they stated that she had been briefed.  Well, the saga continues.

The latest dustup has to do with a letter written by Silvestre Reyes, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Intelligence, claiming that the CIA misled Congress about its activities after September 11, 2001.  Of course the letter was leaked to the press.  One of the instances that Mr. Reyes cited in his letter was a program that was discussed by the CIA but never carried out.  Mr. Reyes stated in his letter that Congress was not informed of the program (why would they be if the program was never implemented?).

The article states:

“House Democrats have set out to hobble the CIA and further handcuff the executive branch. Republicans, naturally, were frozen out. At Speaker Pelosi’s insistence, gone would be the right of the President to limit disclosure of sensitive information to the so-called Gang of Eight — the House Speaker and Minority Leader, Senate Majority and Minority Leaders, and the Chairmen and ranking Members of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. This authority would pass to Congress. The bill would also expand disclosure requirements for all sorts of intelligence activities.”

The Democrat party has made it clear that party politics is more important to them than national security.  Why in the world would we give them more of an opportunity to selectively leak information that is damaging to the national security of our country?

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal had an op-ed piece by Karl Rove listing the statistics on the success (or failure) of the stimulus package and how those numbers should give us pause in supporting the President’s healthcare proposals.

The numbers that were given to the American people to encourage them to support the stimulus plan stated that without it, unemployment would rise to 8.5 per cent.  Current unemployment is now 9.5 per cent.  We were told that the stimulus had to be passed and the money spent immediately to avoid financial catastrophe.  Well, of the $279 billion allocated to federal agencies, only $56 billion has been paid out.  What was the rush?

The article points out:

“On Sunday, Mr. Biden, backpedaling from his drop-kick comments, said that “no one anticipated, no one expected that the recovery package would in fact be in a position at this point of having to distribute the bulk of the money.”

This fits a pattern. The administration consistently pledges unrealistic results that it later distances itself from. It has gotten away with it because the media haven’t asked many pointed questions. That may not last as the debate shifts to health care.

The Obama administration wants a government takeover of health care. To get it, it is promising to wring massive savings out of the health-care industry. And it has already started to make cost-savings promises.”

The economic policies of this administration have not been helpful to the economy.  The cap and trade (known jokingly as cap and tax) bill which will be voted on in the Senate and the healthcare bill that is currently being drafted will totally destroy any hopes of future prosperity we might have had.  Other countries are lowering taxes to stimulate economic growth to end their part of the recession, on the other hand we are enacting policies that will extend the recession in America and possibly lead us to a depression here.

Just a note.  I am currently in California.  I am in a beautiful neighborhood of houses that a few years ago sold for about $600,000.  There is one for sale around the corner now for $280,000.  It is a great bargain, but because of the financial problems in the state, it has not sold.  If you examine the fiscal and environmental policies of California over the past fifteen years, you see that they have gotten themselves into this mess through overregulation, overspending and overtaxing their residents.  I don’t want to see the federal government go down the same road.  The place I am staying has a beautiful climate and million dollar views, but the uncertainties of the California economy make selling a house here very difficult.

Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the National Review about the arms-reduction agreement Barack Obama recently signed in Moscow.  The President hailed it as the end of the ‘drift’ in relations between America and Russia.

We need to remember the political situation in Russia.  Vladimir Putin openly acknowledges that he was formerly a member of the KGB.  I have no idea whether the organization still exists, but I would not doubt that the mindset is still there.  Putin has stated that he would like to restore the former glory of the Soviet Union, I have no reason to doubt this—nor should President Obama.

The article states:

“The pursuit of such an offensive weapons treaty could nonetheless be detrimental to us. Why? Because Obama’s hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development. Gorbachev tried to swindle Reagan out of the Strategic Defense Initiative at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan refused. As did his successors — Bush I, Clinton, Bush II”.

Meanwhile, Poland and the the Czech Republic, who joined NATO with the hopes of being under the protective umbrella of the United States, have had their missle defense shield put in limbo because President Obama wanted to be friends with Russia.  He has again thrown friends under the bus to appease enemies.  The article states:

“Then comes the “pause” (as Russia’s president appreciatively noted) in the planned establishment of a missile shield in Eastern Europe. And now the “Joint Understanding” commits us to a new treaty that includes “a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms.” Obama further said that the East European missile shield “will be the subject of extensive negotiations” between the United States and Russia.”

This treaty does not make the world a safer place for anyone–it gives permission to Russia to return to the old aggressive ways of the Soviet Union.

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about Anita MonCrief, a former employee of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN).  Ms. Moncrief testified last year in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, as part of a lawsuit brought against ACORN regarding their voter registration practices in Pennsylvania.

She states in the article:

“I’ve always been an outsider in my party because I ask a lot of questions and I didn’t like some of the answers I’ve been getting,” she said. “The problem I have with Democrats is that they promise you the world but then they don’t deliver. I identify now with conservative ideas because the answer is not social welfare. The answer instead comes from being less dependent on the government and keeping families together.”

She has now left the Democrat Party and is declaring herself an independent.  Please follow the link and read the article–this is an interesting lady with some good insight as to what is necessary to improve our country.

I drove through Maricopa County, Arizona, a few days ago and noticed a few things.  The roads had no litter, and people were driving at exactly the speed limit.  That is not always the case in a lot of the country.

National Review Online posted an article today by Hans A. von Spakovsky about the ongoing harrassment of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio by the Justice Department.  Sheriff Arpaio is a no-nonsense kind of guy that gets the job done (and done well).  The civil libertarians hate him because he puts criminals to work cleaning up highways and generally makes jail someplace that criminals don’t want to be.  I’m not sure if he changes their criminal ways, but I suspect that many of them decide to go elsewhere to do mischief in the future.

According to the article at National Review:

“The Department’s Civil Rights Division is investigating how Arpaio, the Maricopa County sheriff, treats illegal immigrants when he arrests them. Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security is auditing his participation in a federal program — commonly referred to by its statutory citation, “287(g)” — that allows local police departments to enforce federal immigration laws. Arpaio, whose office is the largest participant in the DHS program, has been accused of improperly launching “crime sweeps in areas around Phoenix with high concentrations of Hispanics” as well as “separating” illegal immigrants from other inmates that he has arrested.”

In February, Representatives John Conyers, Zoe Lofgren, Jerrold Nadler, and Bobby Scott (all Democrats) demanded that the Department of Justice investigate Sheriff Arpaio for “discriminatory” police practices toward illegal aliens (they had no evidence of any problem, and previous investigations had found no evidence of misconduct).

The article at National Review is too long to actually summarize here, but I strongly suggest you follow the above link and read it.  Sheriff Arpaio is doing his job very well, and unfortunately will not get a fair hearing.  His enforcement of immigration laws is contrary to the policies of this administration, and we have seen that this administration does not treat those who disagree with them in either deed or idea kindly.  It is a shame that he is being attacked–he is doing a good job, and the results of his efforts are obvious as you drive through Maricopa County.

Yesterday Power Line posted an article that puts all the fuss about Michael Jackson and his funeral into perspective.  The article is entitled “Honor The Jackson Five.”  Now before you make the obvious assumption, let me tell you what the article is actually about, and let me ask you to please link to it and read it.

The people at “Move America Forward” (a site I have not linked to because it’s a little extreme for my taste, but be my guest if you want to check it out) sent out an email listing the first five American servicemen and women to die in Iraq whose last name is Jackson. You can read the email at the Power Line link in the first line of this article.

These five men and women will not be honored with televised funerals or large crowds gathering to remember them, but the cause they served will make waves in the Middle East for generations to come.  Please take a moment today to pray for their families.  They are the real heroes.  And, as I have said many times before–if you see a serviceman today, thank him!  

Just a note.  Blogging has been a little bit sporadic this past few days because I have been helping my Marine son-in-law, my daughter, their two young daughters, and two senior citizen cats relocate from Jacksonville, NC, to San Diego, CA.  It was a four day drive from where I joined them (Memphis, TN), and they are in their new house expecting furniture to arrive tomorrow.  I’m looking forward to sleeping on a real mattress again!!!

I mention this because it reminds me of the sacrifices the entire family of a military person makes in support of that person.  I was on the base today and saw hundreds of dedicated Marines of all ages who have made countless sacrifices to serve their country.  They live in whatever state the government sends them to, and their families follow without hesitation.  The are paid considerably less than their civilian counterparts, but serve without complaint.  If you are like me, you go through your day not even thinking about the sacrifices made everyday by our military to keep us safe and our country strong.

If you see a soldier, a marine, or any other military man today, don’t forget to thank him!!!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has posted a wonderful quote today by House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).  Representative Hoyer stated that the healthcare reform bill now before Congress would get very few votes if lawmakers had to read it before they voted on it.  This answer was given in response to a question by a CNN reporter.  There is currently a petition being circulated requiring members of Congress to read any bill before voting on it.  This petition was posted at  Right Wing Granny on June 29.  It is a simple petition, requiring only that members of Congress read the healthcare bill before voting on it.

Ed Morrissey points out:

“This goes beyond the inanity of Hoyer in this particular application.  We elect Representatives from each district and Senators from each state to make the laws which govern us.  We didn’t elect their staffs to do that work for the empty suits who go to Washington.  The culture in the Beltway has evolved to the point where our elected officials have more or less become accessories to the permanent aide class within DC.”

Isn’t reading legislation before voting on it part of the job of Congressmen?  What are these people doing during the time they are expected to be working?  Isn’t it time we elected people who will read bills before they vote on them?

Power Line posted an article today about the G8 summit meeting in Rome and the struggle to come to an agreement on global regulations to combat climate change.  The problem in reaching an agreement seems to be that China and India are unwilling to accept any restrictions on their carbon output.  The article points out:

“The implications for Waxman-Markey, a version of which will soon be taken up by the Senate, are huge. If India and China–the world’s biggest emitter of CO2–decline to limit their carbon emissions, it is impossible to claim that Waxman-Markey will have any discernible impact on the Earth’s climate, even if you buy the anthropogenic global warming hoax hook, line and sinker. The only impact the bill could have would be to hobble America’s economy and pave the way for China and India to replace the U.S. as the economic superpowers of the 21st century.

The great advantage India and China have over the U.S. is that their elites have not gone suicidal. Those nations have no intention of sacrificing their economic well-being on the global warming altar. Undoubtedly the leading scientists in both countries have advised their governments that AGW is pseudo-science fueled by power-hungry politicians and charlatans like Al Gore, who has gotten rich by pretending to believe that burning gasoline will destroy the Earth, while relaxing aboard a gasoline-burning houseboat a third the size of a football field.

At this point, anyone who votes for tax-and-trade can no longer pretend that the bill has anything to do with climate. Rather, it is a vote that no manufacturing jobs should be created in the U.S., and that in the future, all such employment will belong to Chinese and Indian workers.”

The question of man’s impact on climate change is not settled science.  Changes in climate occurred long before the industrial age.  To cripple the American economy for the sake of a questionable idea does not make sense.  I believe that any Congressman who continues to push for this legislation will pay a heavy price at the ballot box.

Investor’s Business Daily posted an article today about the environmental footprint of electric cars.  The article quotes Mark Gaffigan, who authored a GAO report on the impact of electric cars on the environment:

“If you are using coal-fired power plants, and half the country’s electricity comes from coal-powered plants, are you just trading one greenhouse gas emitter for another?” asks Mark Gaffigan, co-author of the GAO report. The report itself notes: “Reductions in CO2 emissions depend on generating electricity used to charge the vehicles from lower-emission sources of energy.”

Electric cars use electricity–in America a large part of our electricity comes from coal, so we are trading one carbon fuel source for another–we are still using carbon based fuel.  The article also points out that there are many unanswered questions about what the environmental hazards would be after a collision between an electric car and an eighteen-wheeler.

There are other questions regarding the sources of and disposal of the lithium involved in the batteries of electric cars.  Bolivia, a country ruled by a leader who is not really a friend of America is the major source of lithium.  The other question is how much impact the manufacture of lithium batteries has on the environment.

The electric car may be a great idea for the future, but we are not yet ready to make a full transition to the new technology.  Hopefully, we will further investigate the unintended consequences of switching to electric cars before we fully commit to the change.

Yesterday Power Line posted an article on the impact of massive federal spending.  The article refers to a 2003 paper written by  Thomas Laubach, an economist in the Federal Reserve’s Division of Research and Statistics, titled “New Evidence on the Interest Rate Effects of Budget Deficits and Debt.”   In the paper, Mr. Laubach states:

“This study has shown that statistically significant and economically plausible estimates of the effects of government deficits and debt on interest rates can be obtained by focusing on long-horizon forecasts of future deficits or debt, and future interest rates. The projections of deficits and debt published by the CBO and the OMB are arguably among the best publicly available forecasts for these variables. The effects of these projections manifest themselves at the longer end of the yield curve, as economic reasoning would predict. All else equal, the results of this study suggest that interest rates rise by about 25 basis points in response to a percentage point increase in the projected deficit-to-GDP ratio, and by about 4 basis points in response to a percentage point increase in the projected debt-to-GDP ratio.”

If you are like me, your eyes just glazed over.  Please follow the Power Line link to get the full impact of what this means.  Basically, it means long term interest rates will double, making it more difficult for the government to finance its debt and more difficult for you and I to finance homes, etc.  We need to make some serious Congressional changes in 2010 if we are to head off the financial disaster that is now brewing in our country.