Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about President Obama’s new policy of removing the words “Islamic Extremism” from the central document outlining American national security strategy.  The National Security Strategy is a document which outlined the Bush doctrine of preventative war and describes the struggle against militant Islamic radicalism as the great  ideological conflict of the early 21st century.  The changes to the National Security Strategy represent an effort by the Obama Administration to “change not just how the United States talks to Muslim nations, but also what it talks to them about, from health care and science to business startups and education.”

I really am beginning to wonder what planet this President lives on.  I can’t imagine Iran or Osama Bin Laden doing anything but laugh hysterically when they hear about this one.

Yesterday, Investors.com posted a peace about the changes President Obama has made in America’s nuclear policy.  To me, the ‘money line’ in the article is the quote:

“In his Prague speech last year, Obama spoke of “America’s commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons,” ignoring the fact that before 1945 we lived in such a world and it was neither peaceful nor secure.”

I love the idea of a world without nuclear weapons, a world without war, a world without bullies, a world without tyrants, and a world without dictators who put people who disagree with them in jail (or worse).  I also realize that we won’t ever have any of the above.  Unfortunately, people are human, and unless there are checks and balances on individual power, things very quickly can get out of balance.

President Obama will sign a treaty with Russia in Prague this Thursday.  This treaty promises we will reduce the number of deployed long-range warheads and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy.  Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, points out that as we are doing this, Moscow is upgrading 80% of its strategic forces and conducting underground, hydrodynamic tests (illegal under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty that we observe).  President Reagan used to say, “Trust, but verify.”  I think we need to get back to that idea before it is too late.

Today at the Washington Examiner, David Freddoso reported on five things that we learned about Obamacare after it had passed Congress.  As Nancy Pelosi famously said, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

According to Mr. Freddoso, these are the five things:

• Despite what we were told, the bill does not cover children with pre-existing conditions–that will happen later.  Congress and the White House are moving to change that.
• States will find their budgets stretched to the limit by the requirements that states must provide medical care for the poor under Medicaid.
• Niney percent of Medicaid’s new expenses (created by insuring everyone) will be paid by the federal taxpayer–not the states.  This will increase the federal budget.
• If you are not insured and have not paid the penalty, the IRS will take it out of any tax refund you receive when you file your income tax.  (This might explain why the bill includes the hiring of 17,000 new IRS agents.)
• Ski resorts are now required to provide healthcare insurance for every employee who works 120 days.  The original bill had a 150-day requirement, but the House changed that requirement and increased the fine for noncompliance from $750 to $2,000 per employee.

To say that this bill is a nightmare is a total understatement.  “Repeal and replace” needs to be the rallying cry of anyone who wants to be elected to Congress.  If a candidate whimps out on repeal and replace, he needs to be replaced!

CNET reported today that a Washington, D. C. federal appeals court has ruled that the Federal Communications Commission has no right to impose Net neutrality on internet providers.  The court ruled that “because the FCC “has failed to tie its assertion” of regulatory authority to any actual law enacted by Congress, the agency does not have the authority to regulate an Internet provider’s network management practices.”

The reaction by Congress was predictable.  Generally speaking, Republicans supported the ruling, opting for less government regulation of the internet, and Democrats opposed the ruling, suggesting that the internet be put under the type of regulations used on landlines.  These regulations would include price regulation, service quality controls, and technological mandates.

If you are over the age of 40, you might remember that radio as an money-making business blossomed after the ‘fairness doctrine’ was removed about twenty years ago.  The removal of that federal regulation allowed talk radio to find a home on the AM band and totally revived the AM band.  If you want to see growth in an industry, remove the heel of government from its throat.  It will grow.  We need some basic regulations to keep things honest, but generally speaking, government has overreached and impeded economic growth rather than encouraged it.

Today’s UK Times reported on the new British tax program that will negatively impact British take-home pay starting today.  At the start of the financial year, high earners in Britain will be paying a 50 percent income tax.  There will also be increased taxes on dividends for people considered ‘high earners.’  Those earning more than £150,000 (approximately $230,000) would be affected by these tax increases.  There are other changes in the tax structure that will also go into effect–changes in child tax credits, taxes on bonuses, and changes in stamp duties for homes.

The article reports that these changes could be shelved if the Conservatives win the upcoming election.

This is where we are headed unless we elect fiscal conservatives (from either party) in November.  If the Republicans are willing to step up to the plate in reducing spending, I will support them.  I hesitate to support Democrat candidates because even if they are conservative, they will support the Democrat Party leadership in the House and Senate, and thus will not be voting as fiscal conservatives, regardless of personal views.

I have to start this post with a disclaimer.  I don’t play poker.  I don’t object to the game; I simply do not have the skill set required.  Bluffing is not something I do well.  However, I can think of instances where bluffing would be a useful skill (politics, diplomacy, international relations, etc.).

Yesterday the New York Times reported on President Obama’s plan to make nuclear weapons obsolete.  As part of that plan, he renounced the development of any new nuclear weapons and limited the circumstances under which America would respond to an attack with nuclear weapons. 

There are a few troubling things here.  There are a number of bullies in the world right now–Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Russia.  I have put Venezuela in this category because of the recent strengthening of their ties to Russia.  Bluffing can be an effective weapon in dealing with a bully–telling the bully that you will limit your response to his attacks is not an effective response.  Allowing a bully to develop a more powerful weapon while you disarm is also not a wise strategy.

We may not like the fact that America has, in the past, been the final stopgap against bullies, but right now, we are the only stopgap left.  We step down from that role at our own peril. 

Have you wondered about the “Tea Party”?  I have.  I went to a tea party in Providence, Rhode Island, last April 15th.  There were signs (nothing obscene or violent), families, people dressed as American Revolutionary characters, and speakers from the local media and local politics.  They seemed like regular people with basic ideas.  Nothing seemingly earthshaking and nothing threatening.  On the rare occasions that I have watched mainstream media, I have seen the Tea Party members portrayed as fringe lunatics.  They seemed pretty normal to me.  Maybe I’m a fringe lunatic, but I really don’t think so. 

Anyway.  Today’s American Thinker posted some statistics about the Tea Party that are interesting.  According to Rasmussen polling, sixty-three percent of Mainstream America said that their views are closer to those of the Tea Party than those of President Obama.  Forty-eight percent of voters say that their opinions on major issues are closer to the Tea Party than to President Obama.  Eighty-seven percent of the Political Class (who are they?) say that their views are closer to President Obama’s than those of the Tea Party.  Is the Political Class the people who were exempted from the changes coming in the recent healthcare reform act?  Among unaffiliated voters, fifty percent say their views are closer to the Tea Party than to the President.

So what does the Tea Party stand for?  Tea stands for Taxed Enough Already.  That I can agree with.  Many of the candidates the Tea Party supports give out copies of the US Constitution along with their campaign literature.  There doesn’t really seem to be an organized Tea Party, and I hope it stays that way.  Right now, the Tea Parties are holding our political leaders accountable–they are attending town meetings and holding rallies.  They are doing what all Americans are supposed to be doing.  The only threat they represent is the one to the entrenched political hacks that the rest of us have put up with for so many years.

I am always amazed at the many ways some people can come up with to take money out of other people’s pockets.  Robbing people is not allowed, but it seems as if governments are becoming geniuses at thinking up new ways to take money away from the people who earn it. 

The UK Financial Times reported yesterday that UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is finishing up negotiations on a global banking tax that could be approved at the meeting of the Group of 20 in June.  Evidently, Britain, France, and Germany already support this tax; he is hoping that the United States will join in that support.  Why in the world would we want to be part of this?

Germany wants to use the money raised to provide an insurance program for failed banks, but Prime Minister Brown is concerned that will lead to risky behavior on the part of the banks.  Ms. Merkel of Germany suggested that each country should be allowed to decide how to spend the money raised by this levy.  Why are we letting other countries meddle in our tax policies?  We can mess them up sufficiently ourselves!

This is an idea that needs to go away quickly.  The G20 should never be allowed to determine American tax policy.

Newsbusters.org posted an article yesterday contrasting the reporting of two ‘brick thrown through the window at political party office’ stories.  In Marion, Ohio, 50 miles north of Columbus, a brick was thrown through the window at the Republican Party’s headquarters.  No one outside the local media has reported the incident.  Meanwhile, a similar incident at Ohio’s Democrat headquarters in Hamilton County received nationwide coverage. 

When Newsbusters researched the article in the local press, it stated that Associated Press contributed to the report.  When they looked on the Associated Press website for links to the article, there were none.  Obviously, AP knew of the attack, but chose not to report it other than locally.  Meanwhile, the left is trying to link any sort of political malfeasance to the Tea Party or the Republican Party.  Where is the other side of the story?

Today’s Washington Examiner posted an editorial voicing their concerns about the number of people who are receiving some or all of their income from the federal government.  The article pointed out:

“According to the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, the share of total personal income in the United States that comes from government transfer programs — Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits, unemployment compensation, etc. — has grown rapidly over the past six decades, from 5.9 cents of every dollar in 1950 … to 17.3 cents in 2009. In addition, according to BEA, another 9.8 cents of every dollar went, in 2009, to salaries for state, local and federal government employees, a figure that does not include costs of fringe benefits. In other words, more than a quarter of all personal income in the United States is paid for with tax dollars.”

This is an alarming fact.  I would also like to know the role that welfare spending plays in this equation.  What actions is the government taking to help people off the welfare rolls and help them access employment that will provide for their families?  What attitudes in our society allow people to remain on welfare for generations without seeking jobs?

Admittedly, state, local, and federal pensions have gotten out of hand in some cases.  However, in most cases (as in Social Security and Medicare) the majority of the people who are collecting or will be collecting or accessing those benefits shortly have paid into the programs during their entire working lives.  The coming demise of Social Security has more to do with Congress mismanaging the surpluses during the past fifty years than it does government dependency by the recipients. 

We are at a place where there are too many people in the wagon and too few people pulling the wagon.  Until we change the attitude of Congress toward spending, we will continue to head in the wrong direction.  The 2010 elections give us the opportunity to see if the Republican Party is capable of living up to its promises of cutting spending and ultimately lowering taxes.

The sources for this article are an article at Power Line yesterday and an article at Hot Air yesterday.  Recently, Amnesty International suspended Gita Sahgal, one of its senior officials in London, for stating that the group’s collaboration with Moazzem Begg, a former Guantanamo detainee, is damaging to the reputation of the group. 

According to Power Line:

“Sahgal pointed out that “to be appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender, is a gross error of judgment.” (And worse, I would have thought)”

The article further states:

“Following Sahgal’s suspension for criticizing Amnesty International’s alliance with Begg, supporters petitioned the organization on her behalf. That led to Cardone’s spirited defense of Begg. He argued that Begg advocates detainees’ due process rights within “the same framework of universal human rights standards that we are promoting,” Attempting to reconcile this extraordinary claim with Begg’s association with violent jihad, Cardone asserted that advocacy of “jihad in self defence” is not antithetical to human rights.”

Oh my.  Hot Air states it a little more forcefully:

“In response to the petition, AI Secretary-General Claudio Cordone has issued a letter in vigorous defense of AI’s collaboration with Begg and Cageprisoners. Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project on Terrorism has the story, here. In the letter, Cordone states AI’s position outright: advocacy of “jihad in self defence” is not antithetical to human rights. That Islamists reserve unto themselves the right to determine when Islam is, as they put it, “under siege,” and when, therefore, forcible jihad is justified, is plainly of no concern — only actions America’s self-defense are worthy of condemnation.”

It seems as if Amnesty International has lost its way.  Human rights are totally in the eye of the beholder–murder may not be an abuse of human rights depending on who is doing it.  It is sad to see an organization that is supposed to support human rights condoning the murder of innocent people.

Yesterday at Hot Air, Ed Morrissey posted an article about too much state (or city) government.  It seems as if we are surrounded by government entities that want to tell us how to live.  The example in the article was frothy cocktails, considered dangerous by several states.  Yes, you read that right.  On January 19, 2010, a New York cocktail hot spot had to take the ‘Earl Grey MarTEAni’ off the menu because it included raw egg white.  (Just to clear this up, a comment at Hot Air from a chef explained that the acid in the citrus in a cocktail containing raw egg white will neutralize any bacteria.)  The cocktail menu explained that the drink had raw egg white, the ‘standard raw egg white warning’ was also in the menu, and the cocktail was prepared in front of the patron.  The health department complained that the patron was not also told verbally.

The health department eventually backed off (after threatening court action and other serious penalties), and the cocktail is again on the menu.

Frankly, even though I don’t drink I am offended by this kind of silliness on the part of state or local government.  Don’t they have anything better to do?  How many people are paid to go into bars and see what is in the drinks and if they are explained to the patrons verbally? 

I’m retired now.  I babysit grandchildren, but I do have some time on my hands, so I would like to volunteer for the Font Police.  “Who (or what) are the Font Police?”, you innocently ask.  They will eventually be part of the new healthcare reform bill recently passed.  According to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air, included in the healthcare reform bill was a provision demanding that every restaurant with 20 or more locations will have to comply with a national standard of menu labeling which includes calorie information on the menu.

According to the article:

“”The nutrition information is right on the menu or menu board next to the name of the menu item, rather than in a pamphlet or in tiny print on a poster, so that consumers can see it when they are making ordering decisions,” says Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, who wrote the provision.”

I figure it will be just a matter of time before they send out the Font Police to make sure the calorie information is big enough.  Since I am a former office manager with years of typing and desktop publishing experience, I feel that my talents would be a real benefit to the Font Police, and I would like to join them.  I would also like to mention that after the taxes that will have to be passed to pay for the Obama Agenda, none of us will have the money to go out to dinner anyway, so the whole question of putting calories on the menu is moot.  Ed Morrissey mentions in his article that as a diabetic, he has very simple ways of figuring calories when he goes out to dinner, and none of the necessitate the Font Police!

Please read the entire article at Hot Air.  Ed Morrissey points out some of the problems with what may be a well-intentioned idea.  He also points out the question of federal jurisdiction if a restaurant only does business in one state.  This is a growth and jobs killer included in a bill that is also a growth and jobs killer.  Please remember in November to remove anyone from office who voted for this awful bill.  Repeal and Replace.  Let’s elect people who will do that.

This chart shows one of many reasons unemployment will remain high.  This chart is from Hot Air on March 31.  Ed Morrissey wrote the article that includes it.  In the article, he points out that right now federal employees make more than their counterparts in the private sector and recieve better benefits (our taxes pay these wages and benefits, which were negotiated by public-sector unions).  Generally speaking, the government does not lay off employees in a recession to the degree that the private sector does (if at all).  Public employees continue to lobby for bigger government and better benefits–public-sector pension benefits are causing major fiscal problems in a number of states right now.  We have forgotten that the government is supposed to work for us, and now, in the current economy, we are all working for the government and not being paid for it!

This article is based on a Washington Times commentary by Dave Harbour, commissioner emeritus of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners,a retired member of the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, and publisher of northerngaspipelines.com; and a National Review article by Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE and a visting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.  Both articles provide an explanation of what the changes in offshore drilling policy made by President Obama will do.

Mr. Harbour points out in the Washington Times commentary:

“At this time of domestic travail, it makes imminent sense to develop domestic energy wealth using American workers. To minimize our resource potential is suicidal econ- omically. The Obama-Salazar announcement last week further weakens our country as environmental groups feign outrage. Why? First, the administration has, in effect, reinstated much of the moratoria area that Congress and the president released following the great oil price rise in August 2008. It has effectively renewed moratoria by canceling the lease-sale programs of the Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service (MMS) and giving lip service to opening up other areas by planning to study them, not develop them. Second, what federal lands are available are only somewhat available. Just as a goose thinks it is being fed when the farmer is fattening it for slaughter, the administration talks about a balanced energy program while calculating destruction of the golden egg.”

Similar thoughts are echoed by Jonah Goldberg in the National Review article:

“Back when oil cost $140 per barrel, Pres. George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on offshore oil drilling. Once elected, Obama quietly reinstated it. Since then, Obama’s Interior Department has been doing just about everything it can to slow, hamper, and prevent oil and gas exploration in the U.S. and offshore. There’s no reason to believe the administration won’t keep doing that. Besides, Obama’s announcement actually bans more oil and gas reserves from exploration than it opens up: nothing in the Pacific, nothing in the western Gulf of Mexico, nothing in southern Alaska — all promising areas.”

Expanding ethanol made from corn is not the answer–it drives up food prices around the world and is generally not efficient.  What America needs right now is an intelligent domestic energy policy.  Unfortunately, as long as President Obama is in the White House and Ken Salazar is Secretary of the Interior, that is highly unlikely.  Please remember as you pay your taxes this month and watch unemployment lines grow (the boost in jobs this month was census workers, government workers and temporary jobs), that America has the resources to come out of this recession.  We also have a President, his administration, and Congress preventing us from using those resources.

Today’s Washington Post posted an article by Charles Krauthammer with his observations on the foreign policy of the Obama Administration during their first year (or so) in office.  When you list all of it, it really doesn’t seem to make much sense.

We begin with the return of the bust of Winston Churchill bust to Britain.  Mr. Krauthammer suggests that it simply could have been moved elsewhere rather than shipped home.  It has gotten worse.  Last month, Hillary Clinton suggested that Britian return the Falkland Islands to Argentina.  Mr. Krauthammer details the history:

“In 1982, Argentina’s military junta invaded the (British) Falkland Islands. The generals thought the British, having long lost their taste for foreign lands, would let it pass. Besides, the Falklands have uncountably more sheep than people. They underestimated Margaret Thatcher (the Argentines, that is, not the sheep). She was not about to permit the conquest of a people whose political allegiance and ethnic ties are to Britain. She dispatched the navy. Britannia took it back.”

First of all, the allegiance of the residents is to Britain.  They choose not be a part of the uncertainties of politics and political fortunes in Argentina.  Second of all, why in the world would we comment on a twenty-plus-year-old event that did not effect us?  It’s almost as if we are picking a fight.

President Obama reneged on our promise to Poland and the Czech Republic to provide them with a missile shield (not to mention that the missile shield would boost our national security also).  In Honduras we supported a would-be dictator rather than uphold their constitution.  He is visiting China and Indonesia and not visiting India (an ally).  President Obama may be conducting foreign policy, but I am not sure it is American foreign policy.   

Yesterday, SRN News reported that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has instituted its first set of price controls on the health insurance industry.  The article states:

“Insurance Commissioner Joseph Murphy said he had rejected 235 of 274 proposed rate increases because they included “excessive increases and rates unreasonable relative to the benefits provided.””

The insurers have responded by stating that caps on the premiums they charge are only justified if their are also caps on the costs that the health care providers–doctors, hospitals, etc.– charge them.  The article further points out:

“The announcement had political overtones: Gov. Deval Patrick, a Democrat, is seeking re-election this fall against a field that includes Republican Charles Baker, the former president of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care.

“Patrick is staking himself out as the guardian of small businesses and middle-class voters, and trying to cast Baker as an industry protector. The governor argues that small businesses are limiting their hiring because they cannot cope with double-digit health care premium increases.”

Health insurance premiums are part of a much bigger picture.  Health insurance (and other types of insurance) are based on actuary tables.  This is a business model that has worked well for a considerable amount of time.  In contrast, the ‘business model’ of government control or takeover of a private industry is one that has almost always been a disaster–see AMTRAK, the US Post Office (in contrast to FedEx and UPS), etc.

The rejection of rate increases needed by insurance companies (partially needed due to the lack of tort reform, the lack of competition across state lines, and the fact that hospitals and doctors are charging private patients more because government reimbursements under Medicare and Medicaid are totally insufficient) will lead to less healthcare.  Even the most dedicated doctor is not going to keep his office open if he is continually losing money.  If the insurance companies cannot get the premiums they need to stay in business, they have no incentive to remain in business.  At that point, we have government health insurance, which will result in less quality healthcare for everyone.

This is a link to the American Thinker article posted today about Congressional Representative Hank Johnson’s (D-GA) comment to Admiral Robert Willard, head of the U.S. Pacific fleet, in response to the Admiral stating the plan for an increase in American military presence on the island of Guam.  The article includes the video of the exchange.

“My fear is that the island will become so overpopulated that it will tip over and capsize.”

This is not a joke.  The article points out that Congressman Johnson is ill and can become confused and lose his train of thought.  Then why is he still in Congress?????  It really is time to take a good look at the upcoming House of Representatives elections and retire a lot of people who are not able to do their jobs well.

Today’s American Thinker reported on remarks made by President Obama at Northern Virginia Community College in Alexandria, Virginia, on Monday.  The President stated that the takeover of the student loan program included in the healthcare reform bill will:

“…save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years — $68 billion.  That’s real money — (laughter) — real savings that we’ll reinvest to help improve the quality of higher education and make it more affordable.”

If we reinvest it (spend it), how is it savings? 

In today’s Washington Examiner, Daniel Kish points out that President Obama’s announcement that he will open large amounts of land to offshore drilling will not help America achieve energy independence. 

“So what does the President’s plan really do?  First of all, it kicks the can down the road on the issue of leasing off the coast of Virginia, from 2011 to 2012.  Leasing off Virginia’s coast has received bipartisan support from state and federal politicians, and was a key component of Gov. Bob McDonnell’s successful election campaign.  The sale was scheduled for 2011; now it’s 2012.” 

This is an indication of how a plan that was supposed to help us with energy indepence will actually serve to slow that energy independence down.  When gasoline hit $150 per barrel in the summer of 2008, George Bush and the Democrat Congress acted to open the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) for drilling.  Since that time, the only thing that has prevented that drilling has been Secretary of Interior, Ken Salazar.  The announcement by President Obama does not change the fact that Ken Salazar is still in place.  This announcement is a sleight of hand as the President intends to use the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enact the “Cap and Trade” laws that have no chance of passing in the current Congress.  Look for an announcement in the coming weeks that the EPA will take action on declaring carbon dioxide a pollutant.   

It is also telling that drilling leases will not be allowed in ANWR or off the southern California coast (see yesterday’s Los Angeles Times).

For more information on this subject, see the press release put out by John Boehner yesterday, and the analysis put out by American Solutions.  Unfortunately, the announced policy will not lead us in the direction of energy independence.