The Cost Of Tearing Something Down Without Replacing It

This article is based on two articles, one by Ed Morrissey at Hot Air yesterday, and one by Paul Mirengoff at Power Line, also yesterday.

During the Presidential campaign, President Obama railed against the interrogation techniques used against terrorists by the Bush Administration.  He swore to do better.  Well, as Congress begins to investigate the handling of the Christmas Day bomber, there are a few questions that need to be answered. 

The article at Hot Air points out that the Obama Administration’s only plan for dealing with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was to send him through the normal criminal justice system.    The article at Hot Air points out:

“In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged. These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. This makes the administration’s approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether.”

Power Line points out that the “High Value Detainee Interrogation Group” (HIG) that President Obama was going to set up to take the place of the techniques used during the Bush Administration has not been set up yet.  What are they waiting for? 

The Power Line article cites the Associated Press report, which stated:

“Captured after a bomb hidden in his underwear ignited but failed to explode, Abdulmutallab spoke freely and provided valuable intelligence, officials said. Federal agents repeatedly interviewed him or heard him speak to others. But when they read him his legal rights nearly 10 hours after the incident, he went silent. …

“After being restrained and stripped bare by fellow passengers and crew, Abdulmutallab was handed over to Customs and Border Protection officers and local police.”

We have all heard the story that when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested, the first thing he did was ask for a lawyer and a trip to New York City.  Unfortunately, under President Obama he got both, but under President Bush, lives were saved because he was properly questioned.

This sort of bureaucratic nonsense is going to cost American lives.  It’s time to get whatever apparatus this administration wants to use to question terrorists in place so that future plots can be stopped before they are carried out.

Changing The Rules Because Scott Brown Was Elected

Now that the Republicans can filibuster, the Democrats want to change the rules.  According to The Hill yesterday, Tom Harkin (Democrat from Iowa) intends to introduce legislation that would take away the power of the minority party in the Senate to filibuster.  I can’t believe that Scott Brown had any idea when he got in his truck and talked to the voters of Massachusetts how far the impact of his election would go. 

The article in The Hill goes into the details of the bill, when it will be introduced, etc., but there is something else going on here.  The voters of Massachusetts elected a man who a few months ago was relatively unknown in the state to fill the seat of Ted Kennedy.  That seat should have been a lock for the Democrats.  Martha Coakley was not really out of line in assuming that she did not have to campaign.  Anyone with a “D” after their name should have been elected.  But the Democrats lost the seat.  One of the reasons was that the voters felt that the Democrats were taking them for granted and not listening to them.  Well, wanting to change the filibuster rule is more of the same.

The current healthcare reform bill has never done well in public opinion.  The Democrat spin is that everyone will love it once it takes effect.  The other spin is that it is budget-neutral–sure it is–for the first four years you collect the taxes, after four years the benefits begin, therefore over a ten year period it is budget neutral.  What happens next, do you suspend everyone’s healthcare for four years so you can play that trick again?  So how do you pass it–you move the goalposts in the middle of the game!

Obviously, the Democrats in Washington are not yet listening to the American people.  Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts have simply not been recognized.  I guess we need to throw out more incumbents in November.

Some Of The People On The Ground In Haiti

This is the link to Team Rubicon, a self-financed and self-deployed group of former Marines, soldiers and health care professionals currently providing emergency relief in Haiti.  They are obviously very busy, but have taken the time to post updates on what they are doing.  If you care to donate to the team’s efforts, the link allows you to see exactly what your donation is supporting.

Are The Lessons From Massachusetts Being Learned?

According to Hot Air yesterday, Paul Ryan, a Republican Representative from Wisconsin and the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, has told National Review Online that the Democrats plan to use the budget-reconcilliation process to pass the healthcare bill.  According to Mr. Ryan, they are meeting this weekend to sort out the details. 

Using the reconcilliation process to pass a healthcare bill would mean that the Democrats would only need 51 votes to pass the legislation. 

I’m just not sure I believe this.  Every member of the House of Representatives is up for election every two years–that means they all have to run in 2010.  I can’t believe that the voters in moderate states would reelect people who took such drastic measures to pass a healthcare reform bill that is so unpopular with Americans.  There also have to be some shell-shocked Senators running for reelection this year after what happened in Massachusetts. 

I’m not sure why this story is being put out, but I really don’t believe that the Democrats would be so determined to drive their political party off a cliff.

The Cost Of Exposing The Truth

Yesterday America’s Right posted a story about the independent filmmakers who exposed the corruption in ACORN.  The two had posed as a prostitute and a pimp seeking to buy a house to use as a brothel employing underage illegal aliens.  The ever-so-helpful people at ACORN gave them tips on how to fill out the paperwork to get a loan and how to hide what was actually going on in the house.

As a result of the videos Hannah Giles and James O’Keefe III released of their encounters with ACORN, ACORN was excluded from playing a part in the 2010 Census, and legislation was passed through Congress cutting off their federal funding (unfortunately, their funding was reinstated–see RightWingGranny article of November 28,2009).

Meanwhile Ms. Giles and Mr. O’Keefe III have now been sued by an employee of ACORN for making tapes without the consent of the people being taped. 

The article at America’s Right goes into detail some of the legal action being taken against the filmmakers.  It is a travesty that ACORN is still functioning with government support.

I only wish a judge would simply throw this case out of court.

What Does The Election In Massachusetts Mean ?

Charles Krauthammer posted an article at the Washington Post today analyzing the impact of the election of Scott Brown to the Senate in Massachusetts.  Aside from the irony of a Republican who opposes national healthcare taking Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, there are a few changes in Washington due to the election of Scott Brown. 

First of all, there was the expected ‘blame game.’  According to the President, the election of Scott Brown was the result of anger over what has happened over the last eight years.  Mr. Krauthammer points out that the logic in that statement is somewhat lacking.  Why would a person angry at George Bush vote for a Republican?

Mr. Krauthammer points out the three items Scott Brown ran on–opposition to the current healthcare reform bill, opposition to giving terrorists the rights of citizens, and support for lower taxes.  He also criticized the backroom deals that this administration has made in order to push the current unpopular healthcare reform bill forward.  All of these items are things that most Americans support–regardless of party. 

The article ends with the following quote;

“If you lose Massachusetts and that’s not a wake-up call,” said moderate — and sentient — Democratic Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, “there’s no hope of waking up.”

The ‘moderate’ Democrats in Congress are getting very nervous.

The Cost Of The Minimum Wage

The source for this article is a post at yesterday’s Washington Examiner.  CBS’s “60 Minutes” ran a story recently on the unusually high percentage of NFL players that come from American Samoa.  In the process of explaining this phenomenon, the reporter mentioned that the economy of American Samoa had been ruined by a minimum wage mandate from Congress. 

According to the article: 

“…In 2007, Congress bypassed the usual method of having the Labor Department adjust American Samoan wage minimums and dictated that the current $3.76 for canning fish would increase to $7.25 in stages by 2014. It wasn’t all that long before Chicken of the Sea said goodbye, we’re gone, have fun.”

This was followed by Star Kist cutting back on their work force.  The Samoans had not supported the minimum wage increase–they know they are competing with Thailand, which pays sixty cents an hour. 

Raising the minimum wage has generally increased unemployment for low wage workers.  The last increase resulted in an increase in the number of teen agers unemployed.  Generally speaking, minimum wage earners are people entering the work force who do not stay at minimum wage for very long.  When the minimum wage is increased, fewer entry level people are employed.  It is really not a good idea in a struggling economy.

The Supreme Court Gets It Right

The Washington Times reported today on a 5 to 4 Supreme Court decision to allow interest groups, unions and corporations to pay for political ads.  These groups had been barred from doing this under the The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA). also know as the McCain-Feingold Bill of 2002. 

The interest groups will be allowed to purchase issue ads and donate money to issue groups; they would not be allowed to donate to a specific candidate. 

The article points out:

“The ruling does not overturn laws limiting how much corporations and unions can contribute directly to a candidate, nor does it overturn the ban on so-called “soft money,” the uncapped donations to political parties that had swamped the political process in the 1990s.”

In the age of the internet, there is a much easier way to keep campaigns and candidates from buying an election.  Even if a home does not have internet access, every library in the country has computers that can be used to access the internet.  All Congress has to do to clean up political campaigns is legislate a requirement that all donations to a political campaign or a candidate (or an interest group or a politcal action committee) be posted on the internet at the website of the group receiving the donation within 24 hours of the receipt.  This would give us true transparency and allow people to see who is supporting the candidates and issues.

The Supreme Court decision today is a positive step for the First Amendment.

Changes To The Student Loan Program

Yesterday CNSNews reported that a bill currently before the Senate would nationalize the student loan program and end the current program of federally subsidized private loans.  I printed an article about this move at RightWingGranny on September 13, 2009.  The article links to a Wall Street Journal article which explains the details of the plan. 

According to the article at CNSNews:

“The Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act – currently being considered by the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee – would eliminate the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program. FFEL loans are federally subsidized and make up approximately 80 percent of the student lending industry.”

The idea behind nationalizing student loans is the Democrat claim that it would save money.  Their calculations failed to note, however, that some loans don’t get paid back.  When the default rate was considered, the amount of money that might be saved was cut in half.  The other part of the equation is the cost of the bureaucracy that would be created to oversee the program.

The thing to remember when the government is planning to take over an industry or a business or service, is that without a profit motive, the incentive for efficiency is non-existent.  A business has incentive to become more efficient because it will lead to greater profitability.  The government is not in business to make a profit and generally operates under the idea that if they spend more than planned, they can increase taxes.  That’s the kind of thinking that got us the deficits we currently have.

Can You Hear Me Now?

Can you hear me now?  That is the question the voters in Massachusetts are asking Congress today. 

The Hill is reporting today that the Democrats in Washington are rejecting calls to amend the healthcare bill or to pause in their efforts to rush the bill through Congress so that the President can sign it.  Jim Webb was quoted at Politico this morning as saying that work on the healthcare bill should be suspended until Scott Brown is seated in Congress.  No one seems to be listening to him.

The right course of action at this point would be to scrap the current bill and start over.  A bipartisan healthcare bill would include tort reform, portability of health insurance, an insurance pool set up to cover people with pre-existing conditions, and tax credits to help low income people afford heath insurance.  The last item has a double purpose–you can’t get the tax credit unless you pay taxes.

I am not opposed to the idea of providing health insurance for every legal citizen in America.  Health care is already available (according to law) to every person in the country legally or illegally.  I do object to insuring the poor at the expense of the elderly.  I also object to the bribes given out in the Senate to buy votes.

Health Insurance reform is not a bad idea–the challenge is to do it effectively.  A bipartisan group of legislators might be able to figure that out.

What Happens When The Government Controls An Industry Without The Input Of The People Involved

This article was written by Meghan Lapp, who has worked in the commercial fishing industry.

Commercial
fishing is one of New England and America’s oldest and most
traditional industries. Additionally, commercial fishing provides an
important food source to our nation. It is, however, under attack from
all sides.

                The
commercial fishing industry in the US is regulated by NOAA, the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and several regional Fishery
Management Councils, as established by the Magnuson Stevens Act. That
Act creates guidelines to assist these agencies in creating and
implementing fishery management plans, through obtaining the “best
scientific evidence available” and taking “into account the importance
of fishery resources to fishing communities”, and “to the extent
practicable, minimize[ing] adverse economic impacts on such
communities”.  

                Despite
such clear language, these government agencies continue to disregard
and distort the guidelines in virtually every practical way, making
commercial fishing in New England and the rest of the nation harder and
harder for fishermen.  Instead of consulting with
fishermen themselves on fish stocks, populations and movements, NOAA
and the NMFS have repeatedly and deliberately based their plans,
restrictions,  and national statements (capitalized upon by national media) on faulty ‘science’.

                For example, we have been told by NOAA and the NMFS for years that the New England groundfishery  (i.e.,  fishing for such species as flounder, fluke, haddock, cod, monkfish,  etc.)  has
been chronically “overfished”. The truth is that the New England
groundfishery has been chronically underfished, resulting in the
decimation of the livelihoods of hard working fishermen in such ports
as New Bedford and Gloucester. In 2008, NE fishermen could have caught
up to 75% more fish than they actually caught, without damaging fish
stocks. But because of purposefully unworkable regulations, they didn’t
catch 280 million dollars of fish that they were allowed to catch.
(From
http://www.fishnet-usa.com/chronic_underfishing.htm).

                Most
claims of “overfishing” are simply not true. Again- not to be
repetitive- there are reports from New England fishermen themselves,
who are actually on our waterways day after day and are more aware of
real-life fish stocks and patterns than anyone else, that they have
never seen “so many fish…in 34 years of fishing” (
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/local_story_017215951.html?keyword=topstory),
but they are simply not allowed to catch them. Not only is this true,
but fishermen are increasingly being shunned from positions where they
influence fishery management policy. Why is this going on? Why are our
fishermen and their knowledge disregarded and fish stocks
misrepresented?

                Perhaps
it can be explained as a huge conflict of interest. The fact is that
most of the scientists and officials in positions of power within the
National Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA (including NOAA chief Jane
Lubchenko) have been involved with and funded by organizations such as
Pew Charitable Trusts and other environmental organizations for years.
(For an expose on what would be condemned as a gross conflict of
interest in any other industry, see 
http://capeannsalon.yuku.com/topic/983).  Such
organizations gross millions of dollars every year, fund marine ‘research’ and have huge lobbying power and media ties. 

                Now,
fishermen are fighting back. They are beginning to unite in an effort
to turn the tide and return fishermen to the place they were originally
intended to have- that of being a true consideration when fisheries
management plans are developed. They are crying for an amendment to the
existing fisheries legislation. The new legislation, called the
Flexibility in Rebuilding American Fisheries Act, has two bills in
Congress- one in the House of Representatives (HR 1584), and one in the
Senate (S. 1255). A united rally of both commercial and recreational
fishermen are set to gather on the steps of the Capitol building in
Washington, DC, on Feb. 24, 2010, under the banner of United We Fish to
demonstrate support for the bill and gain Congressional attention. (See
http://unitedwefish.blogspot.com/,  Jan
2 entry.) It is the first time such a united front has ever been
presented to Congress on these issues. You can help by signing a letter
that will be distributed to Congressmen and women who have shown
support for the Flexibility legislation by clicking here:
http://fs16.formsite.com/FixMagnusonNow/form793561462/.
As many signatures as possible are needed, so please consider signing
and coming to the aid of these fishermen. Without the passage of this
legislation, many men and women in New England and the greater United
States stand to lose their jobs and way of life. Another
pro-Flexibility legislation petition can be found at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/241380953.
Please take the time to sign both and give our fishermen a chance. You
can also get involved by calling or emailing your Senators and
Representatives and asking them to support the Flexibility in
Rebuilding American Fisheries Act.  Thank you!

A Miracle In Massachusetts

Martha Coakley has just conceded the Massachusetts special Senate election.  I am watching her make her concession speech.  She comes across better in her concession speech than she did in her whole campaign. 

I voted for Scott Brown.  I appreciated the way he ran his campaign–there were no negative ads–he simply stated what he wanted to do.  There were Scott Brown signs everywhere, and for the past few days there were about three people carrying Scott Brown for every person carrying a Martha Coakley sign.

This has to be a problem for the Democrats in Washington.  Despite what we are being told, this is a vote against the Obama agenda.  Scott Brown made some very wise political decisions during the campaign–he nationalized the campaign and talked about national issues and how they would affect the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (they call it a Commonwealth because after you are done paying your state taxes, that’s what it is!).

Scott Brown was the beneficiary of the perfect political storm.  There is currently a political deafness in Washington, D. C., that the people in Massachusetts chose to reject.  There is a new wind blowing in American politics.  It is not a Republican wind–it is a ‘listen to the voters’ wind.  Scott Brown did not win in Massachusetts because of the Republican vote–he won because of the Independent (in Massachusetts they call it unenrolled) vote.  Had Washington been listening to the American voter (or at least given the impression of listening), Martha Coakley would be on her way to Washington. 

Scott Brown ran a good campaign.  He was a charismatic candidate who knew how to reach out to people.  We can expect to see much more of him in the future.

Why Americans Are Very Special People

Blackfive has posted a story on some personal relief efforts in Haiti.  Blackfive is a military-oriented website.  He posts a story about a group of ex-special forces men who put together a medical team to go into Haiti.  It seems that because of the violence in Haiti, there was a need for medical people who could do security and for security people who can work as medics.  The group they have sent is called Team Rubicon.  Their blog can be found at badgerjake‘s blog.  The group went to Haiti on their credit cards, they are hoping for donations to help with the debt they are incurring.  Please check out both of the above links for further first-hand information on what is happening in Haiti and what these brave men are doing to help.

Reality vs. Fantasy In The Voting Process

This is the link to the You Tube video of the Black Panthers intimidating voters in the 2008 Presidential election.  Today’s Washington Times has the report on the Justice Department’s dropping charges against the men in the video who were clearly brandishing nightsticks in an attempt to intimidate voters.  Meanwhile, Joan Vennochi at the Boston Globe accuses Scott Brown supporters of intimidating supporters of Martha Coakley.  The basis for her comment–an unheard comment at a campaign rally and some rude comments by some Brown supporters.  Meanwhile, the negative ads in the campaign have come from Martha Coakley and have not necessarily been truthful.  I am somewhat amazed by the hypocrisy of the Democrat party in ignoring a true physical threat to voters while calling stupid remarks intimidation. 

Something To Be Concerned About As Massachusetts Votes

Today is the day that Massachusetts votes to fill the Senate seat vacated by the death of Senator Ted Kennedy.   Senator Kennedy was elected to the Senate in a special election in 1962 to fill the seat vacated when his brother John became President.  He could be counted on by the Democrats as a powerful liberal voice who wielded a significant amount of power.  Whoever replaces him will be joining the Senate as the newest member.  That fact in itself changes the power structure of the Senate.

The Washington Times reported on Saturday that Ed Schultz, one of the newscasters on MSNBC, stated, “I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times. I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.”

That attitude from a newscaster is not constructive.  It does nothing to encourage the integrity of the election process, and it certainly adds nothing to the civility of our political process.  One of the foundations of a democracy (or a representative republic, as we are) is the integrity of the voting process.  The polls indicate that Scott Brown will win the election in Massachusetts.  I like that idea, but more importantly, I like the idea of an honest election.

The Wall Street Journal On The Massachusetts Special Election

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal posted an article on what to look for in the special election in Massachusetts  

On Sunday, Martha Coakley appeared at a church with Boston’s Mayor Menino (known locally as Mumbles Menino) and then appeared later with Barack Obama at Northeastern University.  This video at You Tube gives you some indication of the excitement Ms. Coakley was able to generate by her appearance.   Scott Brown was on a bus tour of the state, stopping at Worcester in the afternoon.

According to the Wall Street Journal, these are the things to look for:

  • Will the independent voters turn out?  The article points out, ” Most recent party enrollment data for state, as of Oct. 15, 2008, showed Democrats with 37% of registered voters and Republicans accounting for 12%. But 51% were independents.”
  • Will core supporters turn out?  Scott Brown needs to have the support of Democrats and Independents as well as Republicans (he seems to be doing well in that area–people who have never voted Republican are planning to do just that in this election).
  • Can a Republican win in Massachusetts?  Yes, there have been Republican governors, and Ronald Reagan won the state in 1980 and 1984, but it is essentially a one-party state.
  • Will there be a backlash against President Obama and his healthcare proposals?  This is Massachusetts–I have no idea!

The weather here in Massachusetts today is cold with snow showers.  The weather tomorrow is supposed to be more of the same.  New Englanders are a hearty bunch, and I am not sure if the weather will affect the turnout or not.

Tomorrow will be an interesting day!

Education Under The Obama Administration

According to today’s New York Post, the Obama Administration has cut $700 million dollars which would have gone to supporting New York’s charter school movement.  The United Federation of Teachers, which opposes the charter school movement is seen as the victor in this action. 

The Obama Administration’s track record on vouchers and charter schools is not good.  On December 14, 2009, the Washington Post reported that included in the omnibus spending bill passed by Congress was the end of the Washington Opportunity Scholarship Program.  Senators Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) proposed a bipartisan measure for a reauthorization of this program, but I could not find any reference to this proposal.  In the House, Thomas.gov reported on H. R. 4312, which proposed to fund the voucher program in Washington, D. C.  The status of the bill is currently listed as: Referred to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The article at the New York Post details what has gone on in that state concerning charter schools and their funding.  It is a shame that we are dealing with politicians that give a higher priority to the wishes of the unions than to the education of our children.

While The Media Was Screaming About Wall Street Greed

Andrew Breitbart at Big Journalism reported yesterday on the theft of $42 million of  Laborers International Union of North American (LIUNA) funds by Melissa King.  LIUNA Local 147 is a 100-year old union, traditionally Irish, that represents the men who dig New York City’s subway, water, and sewer tunnels.  They are known as the “Sandhogs.”  Ms. King was paid $540,000 a year to handle all administration functions of their benefit fund.  She has held that job since 1980.

According to the article:

“Starting in 2002, prosecutors charge, King illegally transferred about $42 million from three union accounts covering pensions, vacation pay and other benefits to accounts she personally controlled. A large portion of it, to put it lightly, was unrelated to union business. Of the alleged thefts, $7.2 million went to pay off American Express bills, more than $3 million to equestrian businesses (apparently she was grooming her daughter for an equestrian career), and $713,500 to a jewelry business. The criminal complaint states she also transferred $500,000 to an E*Trade Securities account without union authorization.”

The actions of Ms. King will impact the Sandhogs retirement benefits.  The union members work hard and are paid well.  It’s dangerous work, and they are well paid in retirement as well. 

The fact that this women stole $42 million dollars of their retirement benefits should be news. How much of this story have you heard in the ‘mainstream’ media?  It seems to me that $ 42 million is a significant amount.  Shouldn’t someone have mentioned this?

Every Traveler Can Relate To This

This is not a new story, but anyone who has ever checked their luggage when boarding an airplane can appreciate it.  I should mention that I flew United from Providence, Rhode Island, to San Deigo, California, and back in the past two weeks, and my luggage was well-treated, and the flight crew was courteous and helpful.  Please check out the video at You Tube entitled “United Breaks Guitars.”

Ooops!

Hot Air posted a story today about the United Nations agency for ‘climate change.’  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has withdrawn its claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be destroyed within twenty-five years by man-made climate change. 

According to the article:

“A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.”

Think about the implications of this statement.  There was never any scientific research behind the claim in the first place–it wasn’t faulty science–it was no science!  The idea that the poorer countries of the world would use false climate claims to blackmail the richer nations of the world into paying them reparations is obscene.  Take a look at some of the poorer countries that were at Copenhagen asking for money from wealthier countries.  Are the governments of those poorer countries such that any money they received would go anywhere other than the pockets of corrupt leaders?  Why was it assumed that only wealthy countries were polluting?

The current science of climate change is not scientific!  The leaked emails, the reports of temperature monitors being placed next to air conditioning exhausts, and wrong numbers being used in the calculations are an indication that the science is flawed. 

Even if scientists can somehow show that the planet is warming, can they prove that it is not a normal climate cycle?  That seems to be the question. 

What Is Going On In Massachusetts?

I just arrived home in Massachusetts after a week in San Deigo.  When I left, about ten days ago, there wasn’t a whole lot happening in the special election for the Senate; now, things seem to have changed.

Michael Graham at his blog at 96.9 Boston Talks posted a report today about the motivation he is seeing among Scott Brown supporters.  There are a lot of hand made signs supporting Scott Brown, and people are turning out for rallies in support of the candidate.

A P News reported today on the campaign visit to Massachusetts by President Obama to show his support for Martha Coakley. 

The article cited one theory as to why the race is so close:

“This is, in effect, a referendum on the national health care bill,” Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said. “It is perfectly clear if it’s unpopular in Massachusetts, it’s unpopular everywhere. The American people don’t want us to pass this bill.”

Regardless of whether or not this is a referendum on the healthcare bill, the popularity of Scott Brown may reflect the frustration of voters all over the country.  Voters have called their Congressmen and voiced opposition to the current healthcare bill and have largely been ignored.  There is a feeling among a large number of voters that their representatives are not representing them.  A vote for Scott Brown may be an expression of this feeling.

Tuesday may be a very interesting day.

The Frantic Fight For Healthcare Reform

Today’s Atlanta Journal Constitution has a report on the progress of the proposed healthcare reform bill.  The Democrat party this weekend is trying to rescue a flailing Senate candidate in Massachusetts while attempting to put together a healthcare bill that will be acceptable to all its members.  The Senate race in Massachusetts should have been an easy victory, but a young, charismatic Republican candidate is currently leading the race.  Meanwhile, Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank has opined that if the Scott Brown wins in Massachusetts, the healthcare reform bill is dead (I can only hope that is true!). 

Meanwhile, Ben Nelson of Nebraska has asked that the Nebraska exception that would require the other 49 states to pay for Medicaid expansion in that sate be eliminated.  One wonders about the status of the “Louisiana Purchase” given to Senator Mary Landrieu, or the Medicare Advantage exception given to Florida. 

The real answer to healthcare reform is not included in this bill.  The obvious starting point is tort reform, but that would involve angering the lobbyists from the American Bar Association, a major contributor to Democrat campaigns.  Until tort reform is addressed, medical costs and medical insurance costs will continue to rise.  The current healthcare reform bill does nothing to address that problem.

It’s time to scrap the current healthcare reform bill and start over.

The Fort Hood Report

Ralph Peters has a post today at the New York Post on the government report just released concerning the shooting at Fort Hood.  Mr. Peters points out the the report is lacking in two specific areas–it doesn’t deal with what happened at Fort Hood and it avoids the issue of why it happened.

The report never mentions Islamist terror.  The only criticism in the report is of the “military medical officer supervisors” in Major Hasan’s chain of command at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  Admittedly they should have reported what seemed to be obvious, but the question then becomes, “Why didn’t they?”  The answer, of course, lies in the concept of political correctness.  The officers in charge of Major Hasan were afraid that criticism of a Muslim would have a negative impact on their careers.

The stories that came out shortly after the Fort Hood shooting listed signs that Major Hasan had become extreme in his religious beliefs and his hatred of America.  He was being observed because of some of the internet websites he was visiting.  Major Hasan is not the first American Muslim in the military to inflict harm on his fellow soldiers.  We need to take an honest look at the warnings that were ignored in his case, and we need to make sure similar warnings are not ignored in the future.

Thank You! Thank You! Thank You!

On Thursday, the Jacksonville Daily News (Jacksonville, North Carolina) reported that 25 members of the Marine Aircraft Group (MAG) 26 had returned home after spending a year in Iraq.  I realize that our troops are constantly rotating in and out of war zones and some come home every day, but this was not a quiet homecoming.

According to the article:

“…Tony Fialkowski, national coordinator for the organization Warriors’ Watch,… was one of three motorcyclists who traveled from as far as Pennsylvania to escort the men in style from their landing point at Cherry Point to where their families waited at New River. Though he participates in more than 600 homecomings every year, Fialkowski said, this one had special significance: The former Marine was stationed with MAG 26 for more than a year, four decades ago.”

The article further reports:

“As part of the final Marine aviation element to leave Iraq in the continuing process of turning the nation’s Al Asad region over to Army units, (the executive officer of MAG 26, Lt. Col. Frank) Crisafulli said the deployment had been about transition and releasing control to Iraqi forces. As the nation prepares for a ballot election this month, Crisafulli said, “this time it’s really an Iraqi election. They’ve just got ownership of it.””

Thank you to all the men in the unit who came home, but please follow the link to the article to see the children of one Marine welcoming their father.  We need to remember the sacrifices that the wives and children of our soliders, sailors, and airmen make.  Thank you to all of our military and thank you to all their families for the sacrifices you also make.

On a personal note, this homecoming was special to me because one of the men in that unit has been very generous in sharing some of the pictures he has taken while he was overseas.  Welcome home, all of you!

The Right To Form A Union

Today’s Boston Herald posted a story stating that Martha Coakley told a group of teamsters in Watertown yesterday that she was planning to support the “Express Carrier Protection Act,” which would allow FedEx to unionize.  Currently, FedEx falls under the Railway Labor Act and which does not allow its workers to form unions.

Just off the top of my head, it seems to me that FedEx is doing a pretty good job of delivering packages.  As far as I know, people have the choice to work for FedEx or not to work for FedEx and when anyone takes a job there, they are aware that they are not part of a union.  Frankly, I see nothing to be gained by unionizing FedEx, and since FedEx is based in Memphis, Tennessee, not Massachusetts, I wonder why unionizing it is being brought up in the Massachusetts Senate race.

I might mention at this point that FedEx is not unionized and the Post Office is unionized.  The Post Office is also a private delivery service (it is no longer government run), and the contrast in efficiency is rather obvious.