Most of us have seen the cell phone video of the Black Panthers in Philadelphia intimidating voters.  If you haven’t, here is the link, YouTube.  The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has voiced its outrage at the Justice Department’s essentially dropping charges against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation.  There is an article in today’s Washington Times that points out: 

“Lenore Ostrowsky, a commission spokesman (U.S. Commissions on Civil Rights), told us, “It is rare for a letter from the commission over the last four years to be sent out without any dissent.” There’s good reason for today’s unanimity. One of the Black Panther defendants, Jerry Jackson, is an elected member of Philadelphia’s 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was a credentialed poll watcher for Barack Obama and the Democratic Party when the intimidation occurred. We agree with the concern at the Civil Rights Commission. The Justice Department needs to explain why it is not pursuing charges against these thugs.”

The Justice Department needs to do its job of protecting the rights of American citizens.  The fact that one of the people involved in this was an elected official makes it even more troubling.  I hope the case will be reviewed promptly. 

Power Line posted a short article yesterday quoting some comments by Ron Dermer, Director of Communications and Policy Planning in the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  He made the following statement about Israeli settlements:

“On a personal level, I have a problem with the idea of a Jew not being able to live wherever he wants. A Jew can live in Paris and they can live in Muncie, but they can’t live in Hebron, where Jews have been living for 3,500 years until the community was massacred 80 years ago? The whole concept that peace demands an area be cleansed of Jews is very problematic for me . . . . [I]t makes no sense. I actually think that when the Palestinians are prepared to live with Jews among them they are much more likely to be prepared to live with Jews alongside them.”

I doubt we would be willing to make the type of concessions for peace that we are asking Israel to make.  They have given up land for the promise of peace for more than 15 years now (the Oslo Peace Accord was signed in 1993), and the only result has been that they have been attacked from the land they gave up.  Part of the Oslo agreement was the disarming of the terrorists in the land given up.  I’m still waiting for that. 

Reuters AtlertNet posted an article today on an a new study suggesting that we combat global warming by taxing the rich people in individual countries.  The article states:

“Since about half the planet’s climate-warming emissions come from less than a billion of its people, it makes sense to follow these rich folks when setting national targets to cut carbon dioxide emissions, the authors wrote on Monday in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.”

Let’s think about this for a minute.  First of all, the dangers of carbon dioxide are not settled science.  Power Line posted an article on June 28, with the following opening paragraph:

“The Competitive Enterprise Institute has obtained an EPA study of the “endangerment” to human well-being ostensibly caused by carbon dioxide emissions, together with a set of EPA emails indicating that the study, which concludes that carbon dioxide is not a significant cause of climate change, was suppressed by the EPA for political reasons.”

Second of all, do you really think that American politicians, many of whom travel extensively, creating huge carbon footprints, will pay the taxes levied on them for that footprint (or will they find a way to force the American taxpayer to pay)?  If you check the archives of this website, you will find that on July 3, I posted an article showing how much Congressional travel has increased over the past ten years.  Somehow I can’t see any fines coming out of their own pockets.

Thirdly, let’s look at the concept of taxing the rich because they use more resources.  Manufacturing creates a fairly large carbon footprint.  That footprint is part of creating things that the rest of us use.  Beef production creates a larger carbon footprint than farming in general.  Some environmentalists have suggested that we stop eating beef.  Why are we even considering giving these people that kind of control in our personal lives?  America in general has a much larger carbon footprint than Zambia, for example, but what does America contribute to the world in the process of creating that footprint?  How many life-saving drugs come from America?  How much food do we send to needy countries or disaster victims?

When you begin to move against entities with large carbon footprints (I’m not talking about pollution–I’m talking about the use of enegy), you begin to move against people who create things and produce products that we all use.  To tax them will not improve the environment–it will simply decrease the wealth of the entire planet!  Less goods will be produced and consumed, jobs will be lost, and there will be more poverty.  Universal poverty is not the answer to global warming.

Today’s New York Post has an article about the specific problems the political deadlock in the New York State legislature has caused.  Part of the legislation that has been stalled because of the deadlock is the budget package for New York City which includes a half point sales tax increase that was supposed to go into effect on July 1.  Mayor Blumberg was counting on the revenue from that tax increase to balance the budget.  Each month’s delay will cost New York City $ 60 million.  In an attempt to maintain a balance budget, the Mayor has enacted a hiring freeze and is closely examining all contracts related to spending in the city.

The situation in the New York State Senate has been going on since early June.  It’s time the Senators came to some sort of compromise.  What kind of example does it set for the rest of us when our political representatives can’t get along? 

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an editorial on the ongoing situation in Honduras.  The article summarizes the events of the past few days and tells the story of how Hugo Chavez became a dictator in Venezuela.

The story of the 2004 election and its sanctioning by the U. S and OAS is told in the editorial:

“There was never any explanation for the blind endorsement, but behind the scenes there were claims that Mr. Chávez threatened to call his militia to the streets and spill blood. The oil fields were to be burned. To this day, the opposition contends that the U.S. and Mr. Gaviria made a cold calculation that caving in to Mr. Chávez would avoid violence.

Predictably, Washington’s endorsement of the flawed electoral process was a green light. Mr. Chávez grew more aggressive, emboldened by his “legitimate” status. He set about using his oil money to destabilize the Bolivian and Ecuadorean democracies and to help Nicaragua’s Daniel Ortega and Argentina’s Cristina Kirchner get elected. Soviet-backed Fidel Castro was able to intimidate his neighbors in the 1960s and ’70s, and Mr. Chávez has done the same thing in the new millennium. This has given him vast power at the OAS.”

We (the US, the OAS, and the UN) are in danger of creating the same situation in Honduras that was created in Venezuela.  So far the people of Honduras, the government, and the army have backed the country’s constitution.  We have not.

Ms. O’Grady says in her commentary that she has received numerous emails from people in Honduras asking for prayers for their country.  They want their constitution to stand.  She points out:

“Hondurans have good cause for calling on divine intervention: Reason has gone AWOL in places like Turtle Bay and Foggy Bottom. Ruling the debate on Mr. Zelaya’s behavior is Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, who is now the reigning international authority on “democracy.”

Mr. Chávez is demanding that Mr. Zelaya be reinstated and is even threatening to overthrow the new Honduran president, Roberto Micheletti. He’s leading the charge from the Organization of American States (OAS). The United Nations and the Obama administration are falling in line.

Is this insane? You bet. We have fallen through the looking glass…”

Freedom can be messy, and there is always a cost to standing up to tyrants, but it is definitely something we need to do. 

Hot Air has posted an article by Ed Morrissey on a change President Obama is looking at in the way treaties are approved by the Senate. 

Regarding the approval of treaties by the Senate, the U. S. Constitution states:

“He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…’

According to the article:

“With the clock running out on a new US-Russian arms treaty before the previous Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or START, expires on December 5, a senior White House official said Sunday said that the difficulty of the task might mean temporarily bypassing the Senate’s constitutional role in ratifying treaties by enforcing certain aspects of a new deal on an executive levels and a “provisional basis” until the Senate ratifies the treaty.”

The article points out that the Democrats have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  If they won’t pass the treaty, maybe it doesn’t deserve to be passed.  It is the job of the Senate to enforce the Constitution.  If this Senate won’t enforce it, then we need to elect a Senate that will.

Today’s Power Line Blog has an article about what Israel will do to slow down or stop Iran’s nuclear program.  The article references a London Times article that says that Saudi Arabia will ignore Israeli jets flying over Saudi Arabia in order to attack nuclear sites in Iran.  The Saudis evidently feel that the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities is in the interest of both countries.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch…Joe Biden appeared on ABC’s This Week and danced around the idea of whether the United States would allow Israeli aircraft to fly over our troops in Iraq on their way to Iran to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities.  I’m not sure what his answer really was, you can read the transcript at Power Line.

The bottom line here is simple.  Are we willing to let Iran develop nuclear weapons?  If so, what will be the fate of Israel, our long-time ally in the Middle East?  Part of this problem goes back to our own lack of oil independence.  Because Congress has consistently blocked the use of our own oil resources, we have continued to be totally dependent upon people who dislike us intensely for our oil.  Until we are willing to use our own resources, our foreign policy and national security will suffer.

Bloomberg.com is reporting today that Suresh Tendulkar, an economic advisor to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, is advising the Indian government to diversify its $264.6 billion foreign-exchange reserves and hold fewer dollars. 

China and Russia have been asking for a reevaluation of the use of the US dollar as the global currency reserve for a while. 

The article points out:

“There should be a system to maintain the stability of the major reserve currencies,” Former Chinese Vice Premier Zeng Peiyan said in a speech in Beijing yesterday, highlighting China’s concerns about a global financial system dominated by the dollar.

Fiscal and current-account deficits must be supervised as “your currency is likely to become my problem,” said Zeng, who is now the head of a research center under the government’s top economic planning agency. The People’s Bank of China said June 26 that the International Monetary Fund should manage more of members’ reserves.”

There are a lot of reasons for Russia and China to want to remove the dollar as the global currency; some of those reasons make sense economically and some of them have to do with power struggles.  Russia and China see a move away from the dollar as something that would weaken America.  They see a weaker America as having less influence in the world, allowing them to have more influence.

The role America has played in the current worldwide financial crisis provides an excuse for Russia and China to attempt to remove the dollar as a global currency.  Because of the reckless spending of the current United States government, there are some serious questions about how stable the US dollar will be in the near future.  You cannot print money and create debt at the rate Washington is currently doing both and not cause inflation.  Inflation means that the American dollar decreases in buying power and may be considered unstable.  Common sense says you do not want to holding a lot of unstable currency that is rapidly losing its value.

I don’t know if Russia and China will succeed in removing the dollar as the global currency, but I do know that it is something they have wanted to do for a long time.  Let’s hope enough sanity arises in Washington to stop the runaway spending and stabilize the dollar.

As you enjoy the fireworks tonight, thank God for giving us leaders with the vision and wisdom to craft the outline for our freedom.  Also, remember to thank our military for the job they have done in the past and the job they are doing today.

I am on facebook (and play Mafia Wars) and this showed up on my wall yesterday:

One of My Mafia family has a request from a MARINE to all on facebook!!!!! at 12:00 – 12:01 CST July 4th could we all get together and not post any thing on here and pray for 1 min for our troops still fighting????

I think that is a great idea.

Happy Birthday, America!!!

Louisiana’s Channel Nine TV is reporting that Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has found sharks in inland waters of the Atchafalaya Basin Swamp.  According to the article:

“(Mike Walker with Wildlife and Fisheries) has pictures of bull sharks that were caught among the inland waters in Louisiana. He says sharks have likely been around these parts for decades. However, they’re noticing them more because they now take huge samples of species in different waterways in Louisiana and that’s turning up sharks. It’s no surprise for long time Atchafalaya swamp tour guide Curtis Allemond. “Oh, I used to catch ’em up on the river when the river’s low, yeah (laughs),” he said when asked if he had ever seen any sharks in the swamp.”

Finding sharks in fresh water is not a new thing.  The book Twelve Days of Terror: A Definitive Investigation of the 1916 New Jersey Shark Attacks by Richard G. Fernicola looks at a series of shark attacks in New Jersey in 1916 (sometimes seen as the basis for the book and movie JAWS) and tries to determine what species of shark was responsible.  Some of these attacks occurred in brackish water.  The author felt that bull sharks were responsible for these attacks.

Mr. Walker notes that the bull shark is a very aggressive shark and is responsible for the majority of shark attacks on people.  He joins the alligator and the snake as a reason to stay out of the swamp!!

Breitbart.com has a post up on the resignation of Sarah Palin.  Although I am sorry to see her resign as Governor of Alaska, I am sure the decision was thoughtfully made.  Governor Palin stated that she wanted to make a “positive change outside government.”   Her approval ratings fell somewhat during the Presidential campaign because of the attacks on her from the press.  Those attacks have not really let up, but from what I understand, her approval ratings are still very high.

Governor Palin has done a good job as governor, and I hope that she will remain a strong voice in the Republican Party.  He unabashed conservatism is what is needed to counteract the massive spending and regulation coming out of Washington right now.  I don’t know if she is ready to run for President–I don’t know if the country will accept her as a Presidential candidate–but I do know that she has some good ideas on how to run government efficiently and within a budget–and we need those ideas right now!

As most of us downsize our recreational and vacation plans due to the recession, Congress has no such limits.  According to a Wall Street Journal article today, Congress is off seeing the world at taxpayer expense.

This is not a Republican or Democrat issue–both parties are guilty.

According to the article:

“Often, lawmakers combine trips to war zones with visits to more tranquil spots. In February, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of Democratic lawmakers to visit U.S. troops in Afghanistan for a day. Before landing in Kabul, the eight lawmakers and their entourage of spouses and aides spent eight days in Italy, spending $57,697 on hotels and meals.”

That was taxpayer money.  I hope she had a nice trip.  I myself am hoping for a long weekend in New Hampshire.

The article further reports:

“Documents obtained by the Journal show that the cost of flying a small group of lawmakers to the Middle East is about $150,000. Larger trips on the Air Force’s version of the Boeing 757 cost about $12,000 an hour. Two federal agencies pay for most of the travel — the Defense Department and the State Department.”

Can anyone say ‘budget cuts’? 

Yesterday The Christian Science Monitor posted an article by Octavio Sánchez, a lawyer and former presidential adviser (2002-05) and minister of culture (2005-06) of the Republic of Honduras, concerning the recent events in Honduras.  Mr. Sanchez points out:

“Under our Constitution, what happened in Honduras this past Sunday? Soldiers arrested and sent out of the country a Honduran citizen who, the day before, through his own actions had stripped himself of the presidency.

These are the facts: On June 26, President Zelaya issued a decree ordering all government employees to take part in the “Public Opinion Poll to convene a National Constitutional Assembly.” In doing so, Zelaya triggered a constitutional provision that automatically removed him from office.”

Evidently the Constitution of Honduras takes term limits very seriously.  As soon as President Zelaya began moving toward President-for-life status, he was forcibly removed–that was according to the Constitution of Honduras.  This provision was placed in the Constitution to prevent the problem that Latin America has traditionally had with elected officials becoming dictators.  It seems to be working in Honduras.

Our President and State Department are on the wrong side of this issue.  The are siding with Hugo Chavez, the Castro bothers, and Daniel Ortega.  I hope they will reevaluate the situation.  We need to support the rule of law in all countries!!

The Washington Examiner posted an article today by Byron York on the ongoing saga of the firing of Inspector General Gerald Walpin.  Inspectors General are supposed to be non-political and cannot be fired without cause or without a thirty-day notice to Congress.  Currently, Congress is asking to see White House documents related to this firing, and President Obama is claiming executive privilege for those documents.

“For its part, the White House is hinting broadly that it might invoke executive privilege to keep documents from Congress.  “Your questions seek information about the White House’s internal decision-making process,” Craig wrote to Sen. Charles Grassley on June 30.  “These questions implicate core executive branch confidentiality interests.”  At another point, Craig pledged to cooperate “to the fullest extent possible consistent with constitutional and statutory obligations.”

“The message, apparently, is for GOP investigators to back off.  But that hasn’t happened. In his letter to the White House, (Representative Darrell) Issa is still trying to get information. “The White House’s willingness to provide the facts” about the Walpin firing, wrote Issa, “will go a long way to demonstrate the president is committed to running the most transparent White House in history.””

Most of the press seems to be ignoring this story, but the law has been broken–the rules for firing an Inspector General have not been followed.  The message being sent to all Inspectors General is “be careful what you investigate or what you find”.  This is not the way a democracy is supposed to operate.

The sources on this article are two Washington Times articles and an article from the Wall Street Journal, the first Washington Times article explains that people who lose their jobs because of the bill will get three years on unemployment and other benefits from the federal government (Washington Times).  The second explains how the Cap and Trade bill is a political tool that will hurt the economy (Washington Times).  The Wall Street Journal article (Wall Street Journal) explains the effect of the bill on corporations.

According to the Washington Times:

“Adversely affected employees in oil, coal and other fossil-fuel sector jobs would qualify for a weekly check worth 70 percent of their current salary for up to three years. In addition, they would get $1,500 for job-search assistance and $1,500 for moving expenses from the bill’s “climate change worker adjustment assistance” program, which is expected to cost $4.2 billion from 2011 to 2019.”

Some of the experts believe that the bill will not create serious job losses for at least five years–this could be interesting–how will the Democrats spin that one?

Unfortunately the tax and tax movement is an international phenomenon–remember the meeting earlier this year when a group of countries with high corporate taxes threatened to punish countries with lower corporate taxes so that they could collect more tax revenue?

“The tendency for political leaders – even those fairly elected – to look out more for their own personal interests rather than the greater good is not confined to America. The Organization for Cooperation and Development (OECD), whose 30 members are the major industrialized democratic countries, was formed half a century ago to promote policies to increase economic growth and free trade.

“Unfortunately, political leaders in high-tax states (notably France and Germany) have captured part of the OECD and are using it as an instrument – by creating “black” and “gray” lists – to squash tax competition from low-tax-rate countries and financial freedom and privacy (which are important for global economic growth).”

The Washington Post concludes:

“The world would be richer and more just if the low-tax-rate countries that protect taxpayer rights and privacy could penalize the states that engage in high levels of tax oppression, rather than vice versa, which is now the case.”

The Wall Street Journal points out:

“Even if the law works as intended, over the next decade or two real U.S. greenhouse emissions might be reduced by 2% compared to business as usual. However, consumers would still face higher prices for electric power, transportation and most goods and services as this inefficient and indirect tax flowed down the energy chain.”

If this bill passes the Senate, the cost of staying warm this winter will multiply.  I believe this puts us on the road to having a monitor on your thermostat so that the government can control the temperature inside your house.  California flirted with that idea last year, but withdrew it due to public opposition.

Please email your Senator and ask him not to support this bill. 

It’s not hard to find a poster child for any cause, there is enough pain and suffering in everyday life to cover all bases.  But sometimes there is a difference between telling someone’s story and using someone to manipulate people.  National politics has crossed that line (probably many times, but I am talking about yesterday!).

Power Line covered the story:

“President Barack Obama wanted to put a human face on his plans to overhaul health care, and a Virginia supporter did just that Wednesday. Fighting back tears, Debby Smith, 53, told Obama of her kidney cancer and her inability to obtain health insurance or hold a job.

The president hugged her–she’s a volunteer for his political operation–and called her “exhibit A” in an unsustainable system that is too expensive and complex for millions of Americans. …

Smith, of Appalachia, Va., is a volunteer for Organizing for America, Obama’s political operation within the Democratic National Committee. She obtained her ticket through the White House.”

Breitbart.com has further details on the healthcare proposals and what is being said. 

Just ask yourself one question–“if you get your health insurance from your employer and it becomes cheaper for your employer to pay a fine for not providing health insurance than to provide you with health insurance, what is he going to do?”  Because the government health insurance would be so big, it would be able to obtain services at prices very close to or lower than their actual price.  Private insurance companies would be charged more to make up the difference; therefore, the cost of private insurance would go up.  Eventually, private health insurance would be crowded out of the marketplace.  This is not a good idea.

Power Line posted a fantastic article yesterday entitled “Quick, Spend The Money Before The Taxpayers Find Out!”.  The title pretty much tells it all, but I will post a few details just so that I feel that I have accomplished something.

The article links back to a Byron York article in the Washington Examiner also posted yesterday.  Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank has a wonderful plan to spend the money from TARP that was supposed to be returned to the taxpayers:

“When President Obama announced on June 9 that some financial institutions would be allowed to repay Troubled Asset Relief Program dollars, he said the massively expensive TARP bailout had made money for the federal government.  “It is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these [TARP recipients], the government has actually turned a profit,” the president said.  Indeed, TARP supporters have long held out the hope that the program might be profitable.

“But now Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has come up with a proposal to spend any TARP profits before they can be returned to the taxpayers.  Last Friday, Frank introduced the “TARP for Main Street Act of 2009,” a bill that would take profits from the program and immediately redirect them toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats.”

I am not opposed to charity, but I am opposed to the redistribution of wealth, which is exactly what is going on here.  There are, however, a few sane people in our government:

“Frank’s proposal comes at a time when Republicans, and some Democrats, are expressing concern about the continued use of TARP money.  Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch recently complained that TARP funds are “now being used as a go-to solution to address all of our nation’s economic ills.”  Hatch and Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln recently introduced a bill that would require that TARP money goes back to the Treasury for debt reduction.”

At a time when budget experts are saying that the current level of federal spending in unsustainable, it would be nice to see the TARP money go back to the Treasury as promised–don’t let Congress steal any more from the American people!!!

The three souces for this post are the Canada Free Press, Reuters, and Fox News (Associated Press). 

The Canada Free Press article posted on Tuesday, June 30, points out the connection between ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya and Venezuelan President-for-life Hugo Chavez.  The reporting of the ousting of President Zelaya in this country has failed to mention the strength of this connection and the fact that Chavez has seriously interfered in the internal politics of Honduras. 

The Canada Free Press reports:

“Defending his position as the new Honduran president, Micheletti stated that 12 “advisors” had arrived in his country from Venezuela and the regime in neighboring Nicaragua, now dominated by the overtly Marxist Daniel Ortega. A fact yet to be reported by the AP.”

Reuters reports:

“The interim government says it took a legal course in ousting Zelaya — the Supreme Court said it instructed the army to remove him and Congress voted in the acting president until elections to be held in November.”

The Associated Press reports:

“The new government was on a long-shot diplomatic offensive, ordering home Honduras’ pro-Zelaya ambassadors to the U.S., the United Nations and the OAS.

“The U.N. ambassador, Jorge Arturo Reyna, refused, saying he took orders only from Zelaya. But Honduras’ ambassador to Washington returned home and said he was recognizing Micheletti’s government. “This is not a coup d’etat, but rather a process in which a judicial order has been carried out,” envoy Roberto Flores Bermudez said.

The ambassador to the OAS could not be located for comment.”

Obviously, there is a difference of opinion here.

The Canada Free Press sums it up:

“How long Micheletti can withstand the assaults from the neo-communist elites remains uncertain, but a brave stand has been taken against Marxist tyranny, and the American people should have accurate knowledge about it.”

In keeping with my image as ‘right wing granny’, I watch Fox News.  I was very disappointed last night when watching Special Report to see the events in Honduras reported as a coup.  This is not a coup–this is a country trying to save its democracy. 

CNN is reporting that yesterday the Israeli navy took control of a boat that had crossed into Gazan waters yesterday–doesn’t seem like much–but on that boat was former US Representative Cynthia McKinney.  The boat was stopped because it violated an Israeli blockade of Gaza. 

The blockade is designed to keep weapons shipments out of the Gaza strip–it is not intended to stop humanitarian aid.  The article points out:

“Any organization or country that wishes to transfer humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip can legally do so via the established crossings between Israel and the Gaza Strip with prior coordination,” IDF said.

We need to remember that until the Palestinians recognize the right of Israel to exist, we are going to have problems with weapons smuggling into Gaza.  I believe Israel has the right to protect itself.

According to Google.com, the North Korean ship, Kang Nam, has turned around and is headed back to North Korea.  Since the US Navy never actually stopped the ship–they just followed it–we have no idea what is on board or where they had originally intended to go.

The article also reports:

“The sailing of the vessel — and efforts to track it — set up the first test of a new U.N. Security Council resolution that authorizes member states to inspect North Korean vessels. The sanctions are punishment for an underground nuclear test the North carried out in May in defiance of past resolutions.

Meanwhile on Tuesday, the Obama administration imposed financial sanctions on a company in Iran that is accused of involvement in North Korea’s missile proliferation network.

In the latest move to keep pressure on Pyongyang and its nuclear ambitions, the Treasury Department moved against Hong Kong Electronics, a company located in Kish Island, Iran. The action means that any bank accounts or other financial assets found in the United States belonging to the company must be frozen. Americans also are prohibited from doing business with the firm.”

North Korea does not have the reputation for being the most sanely ruled country on the planet.  The article did report that the ship was moving very slowly, as if trying to save fuel.  I wonder if the ship had put off actually heading for its destination while being followed and then ran low on fuel.  I also wonder if the ‘fireworks’ North Korea was planning to send in our direction are still on.  As much as I feel that internationally President Obama is a weak President, I do think the North Koreans might have considered the consequences of their actions.  I also wonder if the financial move against North Korea changed the situation–North Korea is desperate for money and has been known to sell its weapons to raise money.  Financial consequences might be more devastating to them than stopping the ship.

There is one more thing to consider in this–North Korea works in concert with Iran (and thus Syria).  In the past, North Korea has been used by Iran to divert the eyes of the world from what Iran is doing.  This might be a really good time to keep our eyes open in the Middle East.

The election for Senator from Minnesota is finally over–Al Franken has been declared the winner.  Power Line Blog has a very good review of the events leading to this conclusion.  One of the Power Line bloggers is a lawyer who lives in Minnesota and has followed the events closely.

The verdict from Power Line is that the counting of the absentee ballots was not evenly done, but Al Franken did not steal the election.  Evidently, part of what happens in Minnesota at every election is uneven counting of absentee ballots.

This victory theoretically gives the Democrat party a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.  Since historically the Democrat party has been better at voting in unison than the Republican party, this may be interesting.  Keep in mind that because of some procedural moves made in the last month or so, a healthcare reform bill will only need 50 votes to pass in the Senate–not 60.

Hopefully Mr. Franken can rise to the level of conduct becoming a Senator–although I am not really sure exactly what that is right now!   Anyway, congratulations, Minnesota, you have a new Senator.