Brian McGrory, in an article in today’s Boston Globe, has a few observations on the campaign of Martha Coakley for the Massachusetts Senate seat (the election is Tuesday, please vote!).

Ms. Coakley has declared, “I’ve traveled the state and met tremendous people.”  Mr. McGrory replied in his article, “If she did, it was under cover of darkness, with an assumed name.”

Because the election is in Massachusetts, where Democrats always win, Ms. Coakley did not bother to campaign until the polls began to show that Scott Brown was gaining momentum.  Obviously, a Scott Brown victory would be an earthquake for both Massachusetts and the US Senate.

The article describes the anger of Massachusetts Democrats about the lack of campaigning by Ms. Coakley.  She seems to represent the current group of Democrats who do not feel that contact with the public is an important part of their job either in campaigning or serving.

The solution to the current deafness in our political representatives can be found in the special election on Tuesday.  A vote for Scott Brown is a vote for someone who actually plans to represent the people who elected him.

According to the Washington Times yesterday, when Martha Coakley (running in a special election in Massachusetts for the Senate) was asked about the conscience clause that applies to medicine (Under the clause, workers in health-care environments ranging from doctors to maintenance men can refuse to offer services, information, or advice to patients on issues like contraception, blood transfusions, etc..if the workers are morally against it.), she had an interesting answer.

She was being interviewed by Ken Pittman and was asked about religious freedom in the emergency room regarding birth control and the Catholic Church.  She replied:

 “The law says that people are allowed to have that. You can have religious freedom but you probably shouldn’t work in the emergency room.”

If you follow the link above, you can hear the audio of the interview.

Another reason to vote for Scott Brown on Tuesday.

Today’s New York Post is reporting that Democrats and the President have agreed that the tax on “Cadillac” health plans will not apply to unions until January 1, 2018.  This will save union employees approximately $60 billion, while other employees with “Cadillac” plans will have to pay a forty percent tax on their health insurance plans (approximately $ 90 billion).  The value of dental and vision insurance plans would continue to be exempt for union employees even after 2018. 

The tax on “Cadillac” plans was put into the healthcare bill instead of a tax on the wealthy.  The threshold for the tax is slightly higher than was originally planned. 

The bargaining table included some powerful unions.  The article reports:

“Participants included AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka and Andy Stern, head of Service Employees  International Union; Anna Burger, head of Change to Win; and the leaders of unions representing teachers, government workers, food and commercial workers, and electricians.”

This is not the way to run the government.  Aside from the total lack of transparency in the healthcare negotiations, the number of special deals made with special interest groups and some states is appalling.

As I have said before–the only way to stop this runaway train is to elect Scott Brown in the special election to be held in Massachusetts on Tuesday.  His vote is the only thing that can stop this horrible bill. 

According to WHDH News in Boston, Sal Esposito is a resident of East Boston who has recently been called for Jury Duty.  He is expected to show up for Jury duty in Suffolk Superior Court on March 23rd.  There is only one problem–Sal Esposito is a cat.  His owners have asked that he be disqualified because he does not speak English, but the disqualification was not allowed.  They have also gotten a letter from his veterinarian stating that Sal was a short haired, male, neutered, domestic feline.  So far, Sal is still scheduled for Jury duty.

Since Jury duty is based on voter registration, I just want to know if Sal will be voting in the special election on January 19th.

Today’s Washington Times reports that the House Judiciary Committee (controlled by the Democrats) voted down a resolution to require the Justice Department to tell Congress why it dismissed charages against members of the New Black Panther Party for threatening behavior at a Philadelphia polling place in 2008. 

The Washington Times reports:

“The 15 Democrats, led by Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers Jr. of Michigan, sent the resolution to the House floor with an adverse recommendation, voting it “unfavorably” out of committee. They described the Philadelphia polling disruption as an “isolated incident” that received sufficient punishment when the New Black Panther Party member who carried a nightstick was barred from carrying weapons at polling places in the future.”

If you follow the logic of that statement, I can rob a bank and have the charges dismissed as long as I understand that I can’t rob any more banks. 

The backbone of our democracy is the free election process.  It amazes me that anyone in Congress (even the Democrats) would be so short-sighted as to ignore this incident and its implications.

Just in case you haven’t seen the video, here is the link–You Tube.

Google is threatening to stop doing business in China.  The two articles that are sources for this article are from Power Line Blog yesterday and The New Republic, also yesterday.  Both articles cite incidents of the security or privacy of internet users being compromised.

Power Line Blog points out:

“First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

“Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. …

“Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties.”

Admittedly, we all need to be careful what we post or send on the internet, but there is a general expectation of privacy.  That expectation obviously flies in the face of the control exercised by totalitarian governments, so I guess we should not be surprised by the kind of privacy violations we see here.

The New Republic points out:

“Google’s overriding business goal is to encourage us to devote more of our time and entrust more of our personal information to the Internet, particularly to the online “computing cloud” that is displacing the PC hard drive as the center of personal computing. The more that we use the Net, the more Google learns about us, the more frequently it shows us its ads, and the more money it makes. In order to continue to expand the time people spend online, Google and other Internet companies have to make the Net feel like a safe, well-protected space. If our trust in the Web is undermined in any way, we’ll retreat from the network and seek out different ways to communicate, compute, and otherwise store and process data. The consequences for Google’s business would be devastating.” 

When you consider the growth of the internet over the past fifteen years, it is easy to understand why Google would leave China.  The fact that Google has left China also points out a basic difference between commerce in a free society and commerce in a highly controlled society.  In a free society, Google can do business and protect its users.  This allows for instant communication and information to flow through that society.  In a highly controlled society, that communication is limited and the income and forward progress related to it does not happen.

Yahoo News has posted the latest Associated Press story on the 7.0 earthquake that occurred in Haiti.  Haitian President Rene Preval has stated that he believes thousands of people died in the earthquake. 

According to the article, President Preval stated:

“Parliament has collapsed. The tax office has collapsed. Schools have collapsed. Hospitals have collapsed,” Preval told the Miami Herald. “There are a lot of schools that have a lot of dead people in them.””

The article reported that the Roman Catholic archbishop of Port-au-Prince was dead and the head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission was missing.

Many nations, including the U.S., Iceland, and Venezuela, said that they will begin sending aid and rescue missions.  The Red Cross is also expected to help.  The airport at Port-au-Prince is open, and hopefully aid and rescue teams will begin arriving as soon as possible.

If you have a favorite charity that will be involved in this, now is the time to make a donation.  The Red Cross is there, and Operation Blessing is headed there as I write this.

The Washington Examiner is reporting today on the North American International Auto Show in Detroit.  The article points out that China is now the most important auto market in the world and that Ford is the only healthy automobile company left among the former ‘big three.’ 

The article points out:

“While nobody who has ever run a business would deny the difficulties created by inconsistent or unpredictable federal red tape, the alternative solution favored by Lutz doesn’t make much more sense. He favors a “gradual increase in the federal fuel tax of 25 cents a year, which in my estimation would have the benefit of giving automobile companies a planning base, and giving families that own vehicles a planning base.”  While this might make it easier for car companies to plan their lineups, there is another side to the Lutz proposal.  Higher gas prices would force consumers to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles, thus boosting sales of cars like the Chevrolet Volt electric plug-in appearing in dealer showrooms later this year.” 

The danger here is a government-owned automobile company that can influence legislation to create a better market to sell its cars.  Ford, while declining to take federal money, has increased its sales and the value of its stock.  Traditionally Americans support free competition between their auto makers.  I would be a shame to see the government mess that up because they owned one of the companies!  When the government took over General Motors, I believe many Americans decided they would not buy GM cars. 

 I am hoping to replace my gracefully aging Ford Mustang convertible with a new Mustang convertible this year!  I would not even consider looking at a General Motors car.

The Corner at National Review Online posted an article and a video today detailing an incident in Washington, D. C., in which a Weekly Standard reporter was shoved out of the way after asking an unfriendly question to Martha Coakley as she walked to her car.

The incident is also reported on the Weekly Standard Blog.  The Weekly Standard Blog reports:

“After Coakley finished her answer, she began walking away from the restaurant, and I walked behind her asking why health care industry lobbyists were supporting her at the fundraiser. She didn’t reply.

“As I walked down the street, a man who appeared to be associated with the Coakley campaign pushed me into a freestanding metal railing. I ended up on the sidewalk. I was fine. He helped me up from the ground, but kept pushing up against me, blocking my path toward Coakley down the street.”

As I have said before, I have no idea whether or not Scott Brown can win in Massachusetts, but the voters in Massachusetts have to decide exactly what they are willing to put up with from their political candidates.  I am a Massachusetts voter, and I am appalled by that sort of strongarm behavior.  One of the things that I have appreciated about the Scott Brown campaign is that they have run a very clean campaign.  I believe that Scott Brown represents a positive change in Massachusetts politics.  I would like to see him elected.

The New York Times reported yesterday that President Obama is considering a tax on large banks in order to reduce the deficit.  There is a practical and political purpose to this idea.  From a practical standpoint, the tax on banks would theoretically help bring down the deficit (this may be true, but as we all know, any tax placed on a business is passed on to the consumer).  From a political standpoint, the tax may calm the anger that the public has against large banks that received bailouts and then paid large bonuses to their top employees. 

The article poiints out:

“Lobbyists for bankers, taken by surprise, immediately objected to any new tax. They said financial institutions had been repaying their portion of the bailout money in full, with interest. Losses from the $700 billion bailout fund — estimated to run as high as $120 billion — are expected to come from the automobile companies and their finance arms, the insurance giant American International Group and programs to avert home foreclosures, and the president is aiming to recoup that money.”

I guess my reaction to this news is simple.  Has the Democrat party ever met a tax they didn’t like?  Since a large part of the financial bubble that caused our current financial crisis was caused by bad real estate loans, has anyone done anything about tightening the standards for borrowing money to buy a house?

According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air today, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee  (DSCC) has recently purchased $567K in ads in the Boston and Springfield markets to support Martha Coakley’s campaign. 

According to Mr. Morrissey:

“That’s over $800,000 from the party in just 48 hours.  And they’re not buying ads because they’re believing that Boston Globe poll that puts Coakley up 15 points over Scott Brown, either.  The fact that they have to have an ad buy in Boston should be rather unnerving for Democrats around the country.  Democrats own Boston — or at least they did.”

The money spent in Massachusetts at the last minute was obviously money that was originally intended to be spent elsewhere.  However this election turns out, it has been more of an uphill climb for the Democrats than expected.  That alone is a good thing.

Opinion polls around the nation reflect the unpopularity of the healthcare reform bill and the other power grabs of the Obama Administration and the Democrat-controlled (filibuster-proof) Congress.  Electing Scott Brown to the Senate is the only sure way to stop healthcare reform.  Nothing else will work.

At one point during the debate, Scott Brown was asked how he would feel about being the vote that would kill the current healthcare reform bill while sitting in Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat.  Mr. Brown had the good sense to observe that it wasn’t Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat–the seat belonged to the people of Massachusetts and that’s who he would represent.

Sometimes when you look at the things a candidate does during an election campaign, you get a glimpse into the wisdom that they will bring to the decisions they make after they are elected.  Martha Coakley has shot herself in the foot many times recently, but her last move is amazing. 

According to the Boston Herald today, Ms. Coakley has begun an initiative in Massachusetts to make sure all garden clubs submit four years of financial records to the state.  The garden clubs are the organizations that maintain traffic islands, town halls, libraries, and veteran’s hospitals across the state.  Most of these organizations bring in about $5,000 to $10,000 a year in annual dues and plant sales.  Garden clubs in the state have recently received a strong letter from the Attorney General’s Office stating that they need to file four years’ worth of financial records by February 4th.

According to the article:

“Coakley spokeswoman Jill Butterworth said the letter is part of a statewide push to ensure all charities file with the attorney general’s office to let the public know how their money is being spent.”

There does need to be accountability and transparency in any organization about how the money it collects is spent, but I would assume that the members of the organization would do a better job of controlling that than the state.  This is another example of the state wasting time harassing people doing a good thing, rather than dealing with people who intentionally break laws.

A website called PedalToTheMedal.com posted a story on Saturday about some animal rights activists who decided to protest at a motorcycle gang rally because the bikers wore leather.  I don’t condone lawbreakers and bullying, and I don’t necessarily think all bikers are horrible people, but I do think there was a certain lack of common sense in deciding to protest a motorcycle gang rally because they wore leather.  (I would like to note at this point that I was once privileged to sit in on keyboards for a biker band called the “Righteous Rockers” in New Orleans.)

Three of the protestors were reported missing after the protest, and the police had to be called in. 

According to the article:

“According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960’s era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with balloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting “you’re murderers” to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.”

That’s not a protest–that’s assault!  Again, I do not condone violence, but it seems as if the animal rights group was not used to being challenged when they assaulted people, and the biker gang simply met force with force. 

Read the entire article to find our where some of the protestors were found!

The original goal of the President and Congress was to get healthcare reform passed by October.  That deadline (and a few others) have come and gone, and healthcare reform is still being ironed out.  What are the consequences of the delay?

Hot Air posted an article by Ed Morrissey today on what is happening to public opinion regarding the healthcare reform bill now being ironed out in Congress.  As time goes on, more and more people are learning what is in the bill, and the response is not positive.  Many young voters are starting to come to grips with the idea that they will be required by law to purchase health insurance.  Since one of the tenets of youth is the idea that you are ‘invincible,’ the idea of having to purchase insurance is not always well received. 

Rather than allow the ‘invincible’ youth to purchase a simple polilcy that would cover emergency hospitalization, the healthcare reform proposal requires them to purchase comprehensive healthcare coverage–at a much higher price.  This underwrites the cost of insuring the older population and the increased number of people being insured. 

Mr. Morrissey points out:

“For younger people, an inexpensive hospitalization policy makes the most sense, with the occasional doctor’s visit handled with cash.  A full physical would normally cost only $200 or less, which makes spending $300 a month on a comprehensive policy (the Minnesota average for 2007) an obvious waste, even if someone got a full physical every quarter.  It doesn’t take a postgraduate degree in economics to figure that out — and to figure out why politicians need to use the power of federal government to coerce younger people into economic slavery to the vast majority of the country that need their risk subsidized.”

The requirement for young people to pay for something they don’t need, along with the serious reduction in medical care that will be available to the elderly, make this bill hard to swallow for people of all ages.  The more people learn about the current healthcare reform proposal, the less they like it.  That is a good reason for further delay!

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article by Hugh Hewitt about the Massachusetts special election to be held on January 19th.  Hugh Hewitt points out that in any other year, Martha Coakley, the Democrat candidate, would be ahead by thirty points.  The polls are all over the place–some polls have Scott Brown ahead by one point and other polls have Martha Coakley ahead by as much as fifteen points.  It will be an interesting election.

The election is about healthcare.  Massachusetts has universal healthcare.  All the taxes and federal control of healthcare included in the proposed federal healthcare bill will only be a negative for Massachusetts.  The voters are beginning to realize that voting for Scott Brown might be a positive for the state–he would be the vote to stop healthcare.  If elected, Scott Brown would serve the remainder of Ted Kennedy’s term, and an election will be held in 2012 to fill the seat for six years.

The election of Scott Brown is the only way to stop Obamacare.  Our Congressmen and Congresswomen have chosen to ignore the calls and emails they have received telling them to vote against the healthcare legislation as it stands.  A victory for Scott Brown would force a bipartisan effort on healthcare that might actually result in real reform.

On January 8, Hot Air reported that U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan said that the government had failed to prove that a number of the statements made by Al Madhwani were untainted by previous statements he had made while held under harsh conditions in Afghanistan.  The Judge did rule, however, that statements the defendent made at hearings while in Cuba were reliable and justified holding the detainee.

Allahpundit, who authored the article, states that he is not concerned about any of the terrorists at Guantanamo being set free because he feels that the system being used to try them is rigged.  He feels that in situations where President Obama feels that the evidence is overwhelming and there is no need for a confession from the terrorist, the person is tried in a civilian court so that the President can boast about ‘due process.’  When the case hinges on the confession, the case goes to a military tribunal so that the President can boast about ‘the conviction.’  It’s a system that has more to do with politics than justice.

The concern of the author of the article is that we need to make sure we have the process of trying terrorists in civilian courts perfected before we try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.  That would be a really good idea!

In her Washington Post column today, Kathleen Parker takes a look at what is happening in the campaign for the special election to be held in Massachusetts on January 19th.  This is the election that is being held to fill the late Ted Kennedy’s vacant Senate seat. 

The candidates in the special election are State Senator Scott Brown,  Attorney General Martha Coakley, and Joseph L. Kennedy (no relation to the family of the late Senator Ted Kennedy).  Once Martha Coakley won the Democrat primary, it was assumed that she would easily be elected to the Senate.  That may actually happen, but Scott Brown has closed the gap between the two candidates to single digits.  Scott Brown was thirty one points down in November 2009; he is now down approximately nine points.  Momentum in political campaigns is a tricky thing, and right now the Scott Brown campaign has it.

Ms. Parker concludes:

“A Brown victory in one of the nation’s bluest states would be as surprising as the rise of a young black senator to the presidency in 2008. It also would be a stunning referendum on the Obama administration. A phenomenon, if you will.”

Scott Brown is not a perfect candidate, but I believe he would be an independent voice trying to represent the people who elected him.  That would be a pleasant change from many of the people currently serving in Congress.

According to a post at The Hill yesterday, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is questioning the Medicare savings the Democrats in Congress are claiming will occur with the passage of the current healthcare reform bill.

The article points out:

“The CMS report estimated that national health expenditures would increase by $222 billion or 0.6 percent from 2010 to 2019.
 
“The Senate plan purports to achieve $483 billion in Medicare savings over the next 10 years, including $118 billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage plans, a program favored by Republicans that distributes Medicare benefits through private providers.”

The CMS report stated that the increase in the number of people receiving some form of government healthcare is bound to increase the cost to some extent.  The slated cuts in Medicare are scheduled to occur at a time when the ‘baby boomers,’ a large segment of the country’s population will become eligible for Medicare.  That simply does not make sense.

Chron.com, a blog that covers military and veteran’s news, reported today on a discovery their reporter made in Iraq. 

The article reports:

“I was exploring Camp Cropper last week when I smelled something I never expected to smell in Baghdad: Texas barbecue.

“I followed my nose and found half a dozen soldiers from the Houston-based 72nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team grilling burgers outside their barracks.”

The person manning the barbeque grill, Sgt. Alberto Salazar, explained that the barbeque was a ‘bonding’ experience for the Texas natives in Iraq and helped the time go faster while they were there. 

The article also pointed out that the barbeque sauces they had brought with them were running low, and donations of barbeque supplies would be appreciated.

If you want to help, please send any non-perishable sauces and seasonings to:

Charlie Company
3-141 Infantry
APO AE 09342

Anything sent will be promptly consumed and greatly appreciated.

Today’s Boston Herald is reporting the lastest efforts by the Democrat party to pass the current healthcare reform bill despite the wishes of the American voters.  It has been mentioned here and other places that Scott Brown (running in a special election to take place in January 19th in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat) would be the 41st vote and would potentially be the vote that stops the runaway train that is Obamacare.  Well, not so fast.  As the possibility arises that Scott Brown could win in Masschusetts (a Republican win in Massachusetts???  Wow!), the Democrats are moving to keep him out of the Senate until after the healthcare vote. 

The Boston Herald reports:

“Today, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“”Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

“Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 – well after the president’s address.”

The article further points out:

“In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.”

This is just wrong.  If the certification of the special election is held up for political reasons, as is the plan by the Democrat party, it is a further indication of the lack of respect by many of our political leaders for the people who elect them.  We need to remember the actions of our political leaders when the next election takes place.

Yahoo News posted a Bloomberg.com story today on how we are going to pay for the proposed healthcare legislation.  The House may agree to the Senate idea of raising Medicare payroll taxes and taxing health benefits.  It also looks as if the surtax on the wealthy may be tossed out. 

The bottom line here is that someone has to pay for whatever healthcare plan is passed.  There is no free lunch.  Raising taxes on anything in a struggling economy will inhibit economic growth.  This is not the way to end a recession.

What we need to do is to scratch the current healthcare bill and start over.  Bipartisanship would be nice.  There are a few things that would actually work in dealing with the challenges we face in our healthcare system:

• Tort reform
• Coverage for pre-existing conditions
• Portability across state lines
• Tax breaks to help low income people pay for health insurance

Those are the only things that really need to be done to improve healthcare in America.  Anything else is overkill.

If you would like to see the current healthcare reform bill defeated and you live in Massachusetts, a vote for Scott Brown on January 19th would have that effect.  If you don’t live in Massachusetts, please feel free to donate to his campaign!  The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts may be the only thing that can stop this awful bill!

Remember Leon Panetta?  He’s the director of the CIA.  I would think that the director of the CIA would want to be involved somehow in the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day bombing or maybe in the aftermath of the killing of seven of his agents by a terrorist.  Well, I might be wrong.

Yesterday at Hot Air it was reported that Leon Panetta was vacationing in California during the Christmas holiday and didn’t get back to Washington until the weekend after January 1.  Aren’t these the same people who screamed because George W. Bush finished reading a book to little children rather than scare them by getting up and running from the room?  The deputy director of the CIA returned to Washington right after the killing of the seven CIA agents.

Doesn’t anyone in this administration care enough to be there?

Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal reported that the current healthcare proposal will bring back the marriage tax.  For many low and middle-income married couples, the difference in the cost of healthcare between being married and living together could be as much as two thousand dollars.  This has to do with federal subsidies which are linked to federal poverty guidelines. 

Generally speaking, when the government taxes an activity, it decreases.  The healthcare bill, in its current form, will weaken family life in America.  Since the family is the training ground and the building block of our society, we might not want to do that. 

Leadership U pointed out in 1994 that:

“One of the most significant factors contributing to the breakdown of the family has been the steady rise of unwed births. Since 1960, illegitimate births have increased more than 400 percent. In 1960, 5 percent of all births were out of wedlock. Thirty years later nearly 30 percent of all births were illegitimate. Among blacks two out of every three births are illegitimate.”

The article at Leadership U also points out:

“Yet the consequences of fatherless homes is devastating. “More than 70 percent of all juveniles in state reform institutions come from fatherless homes.” Children who grow up without fathers are more likely to be involved in criminal behavior because they lack a positive male role model in their lives. Fathers are not irrelevant. They may indeed spell the difference between success and failure for their children.”

We need strong families in America.  Passing a tax increase on families (particularly at this time) is not a good idea.

Yesterday Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial on the recent action of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar to make it more difficult for American companies to produce more oil and gas.  Secretary Salazar announced that he is placing new barriers on the development of America’s oil and gas resources.

The editorial points out:

“Let’s put this in perspective: Since 1859, when the first oil well was drilled in Titusville, Pa., the world has used 1.1 trillion barrels of oil. We have twice that amount locked up in oil shale deposits, mostly on federal lands. By comparison, the current No. 1 in proven oil reserves, Saudi Arabia, has just 266 billion barrels of oil.”

This is not only bad energy policy, it is bad economic policy.  The development of alternative energy sources is a wonderful idea, but it is not here yet.  Until it is, the answer to America’s high cost of energy is very simple–drill, baby, drill.

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an article about a clash Wednesday between Egyptian troops and Hamas supporters along the Gaza border.  One Egyptian soldier was shot and more than a dozen Gazans wounded.

The article reports:

“Accompanied by a barrage of rocks, the shooting underlined the mounting tensions over Egypt’s construction of an underground steel wall that could seal Gaza’s southern border, block hundreds of smuggling tunnels and deprive Gaza’s Hamas rulers of their only lifeline.

“Hamas is trying to rally Arab and Muslim public opinion against the barrier it has dubbed the “death wall.” Hamas-allied Muslim clerics have denounced the wall as “haram,” or forbidden by Islam, and protesters picketed Egyptian embassies in Lebanon and Jordan this week.”

We sometimes forget that terrorism is a problem for some Arab nations as well as a worldwide problem.  Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.  As part of that treaty, the Sinai was returned to Egypt.  A little more than a year after signing that treaty, Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat was assassinated by the Muslin Brotherhood, a group of Islamist radicals that we still have to contend with today. 

The tunnels at the Egyptian border with Gaza have been used to smuggle weapons into Gaza, but also to smuggle items that lessen the impact of a blockade which is intended to stem to flow of weapons and military items.  It is not only logical that Egypt would want to stop the smuggling, it is in their best national interest to do so.

The thing to remember in dealing with any news from the Middle East is the propaganda factor.  When some cars of a caravan bringing supplies into Gaza were turned back recently, Egypt was immediately accused of preventing medicine from being brought to the people of Gaza.  Since only 45 vehicles of 200 vehicles were denied entry, I doubt medicine was the issue.