I was fortunate today to attend a seminar put on by an anti-terrorism expert.  There is no way I could actually condense the things that I heard into a blog post.  I do, however, want to share the opening quote of the seminar because it is definitely food for thought.

“Only a coaliton of Marxists and Islamists can destroy the United States.”

Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, aka Carlos the Jackal,  in Revolutionary Islam, pub. 2003

The seminar provided a lot of history and background on terrorism in the United States.  It was totally enlightening, but also disturbing.  It also pointed out the dangers of substituting political correctness for truth.  We live in a time of danger that requires honesty and vigilance on the part of Americans.  I hope we are up to the task.

On Thursday, the New York Post reported that General Motors planned to issue an initial public offering soon.  This action represents the government attempting to sell its interest in the company to private investors.  The writers of the article point out that in their minds the General Motors bailout was a model of corruption and cronyism.

In 2009 the government bought a majority stake in General Motors for $50.  This represents an amount equal to General Motors’ market capitalization in 2000. 

The details of the bailout by the government were in violation of normal backruptcy procedures.  Bondholders, who loaned GM a total of $27 billion, received 10 percent of the company.  The government loaned $50 billion and received about 61 percent.

The article futher reports:

“And the union — in return for the $20 billion that GM owed its health trust — got a remarkable 17.5 percent of the stock plus $2.5 billion in cash plus $6.5 billion in preferred stock carrying a dividend of about 9 percent.

“In other words, the UAW got three to four times as much as the bondholders for a smaller claim on GM’s assets. The union even boasted to its members in May 2009 that it had made no concessions on pay, health care or pensions in the restructuring.”

This was an example of the government choosing favored and unfavored groups.  Unfortunately, we are constantly seeing examples of this in the way TARP money and stimulus money is being handed out. 

The article wonders if small bondholders who were burned by the actions of the government in the General Motors bailout will be reluctant to invest in companies in the future.  Unfortunately, until the Obama Administration revises its policies on how businesses and investors are treated, economic growth may remain slow.

Informed sources are predicting that if the Democrat party loses the House of Representatives in the November election, there will be lame-duck session of Congress after the election to pass some of the legislation that the Democrats can’t seem to get passed now.  The logic is that since many members will have been voted out and thus not have to worry about being re-elected, they will be willing to vote for some of the more unpopular bills–Cap and Trade, Card Check, and tax increases.  I suppose that is possible, but it really would be political suicide for the Democrat party.  When I thought about that, I wondered why, even after the global warming scandals, the Democrats would still be pushing Cap and Trade.  Well, I think I have my answer–follow the money!

There was a very interesting article at the American Thinker yesterday.  The article reported that the Chicago Climate Exchange is running out of money and laying off employees.  What is the Chicago Climate Exchange?   It is a company that trades ‘carbon credits.’

The article points out:

“The only surprise is that Richard Sandor, who founded CCX in 2003 and was dubbed a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” in 2007, is being retained as an advisor. “Voluntary” trading of greenhouse gas emissions on CCX has all but dried up and prices have plunged from a high of over $7 per ton in 2008 to just 10 cents now, making recent stock market losses look rosy by comparison. Not exactly what Sandor, who once predicted a $10 trillion worldwide carbon market, expected would happen.”

Trading carbon credits is a very ethereal concept.  In essence, you are paying a company to allow you to pollute, and theoretically they will use the money to pay someone to plant a tree somewhere.  My husband keeps threatening to print up a business card saying that if someone will pay him $5, he will not take a shower for a day, thus saving the environment.  We could debate what that would do to his immediate environment, but you get the picture.  However, the interesting part of the article is at the end.

The article points out:

“The biggest losers have been CCX’s two biggest investors – Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management and Goldman Sachs – and President Obama, who helped launch CCX with funding from the Joyce Foundation, where he and presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett once sat on the board of directors.”

Now I understand why Cap and Trade is still being pushed, even though it may destroy the American economy and the Democrat party–look at who the investors are!

John Fund posted an article in today’s Wall Street Journal about the plans for the lame-duck session of Congress to convene after the November election. 

The article reports:

“This week, the House voted down a resolution opposing a lame-duck session to tackle hot button issues such as new taxes and climate change. Even though six Democrats joined Republicans in voting against considering such legislation before the new Congress is seated, Majority Leader Harry Reid has announced the Senate will nonetheless return on November 15, then take a Thanksgiving break, then come back for more business on November 29, with no specified target date for adjournment.”

The Democrats are planning “one of the most significant lame-duck sessions in the history of the United States.”  The possible agenda includes climate change, increased taxes, and potentially any other items that could not be rammed through before the election.

The name of the John Fund article is, “You Vote, They Don’t Listen.”  That seems to be where we are right now.  

The only way to deal with this is to keep track of anyone who votes for any of this extreme legislation in the lame-duck session and to make sure that that person is voted out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.  Not only are the voters’ wishes being ignored, Congress has chosen to flaunt the fact that the will of the voters does not matter.  It is time to remind all of them who pays their salary.

Yesterday Investors.com posted an editorial entitled, “The Cabinet From Another World.”  I love the title. 

Labor Secretary Hilda Solis has worked for the government all of her life.  She was part of Carter White House’s Office of Hispanic Affairs, Los Angles County insurance commissioner, served in the California Assembly and Senate, and then went to Washington, D. C. to represent California’s 32nd District.

After three years in the private sector, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner went to work in 1988 for the Treasury Department.  He worked for the International Monetary Fund from 2001 until 2003.  In 2003 he took over as President of the New York Federal Reserve.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was the governor of Washington from 1997 to 2005.  Prior to that he was a criminal prosecutor.  Later he served in the state legislature.  He did have limited private sector experience as a rainmaker for Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an international law firm from 2005 to 2009.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu has been in the public sector since 1987.  According to the article:

“…the Berkeley physicist is hostile to private enterprise to the point of blaming “free market forces” for not cutting carbon dioxide emissions.” 

President Obama has only one year of experience in the private sector (immediately after college graduation).  The American economy is not a place for on-the-job training.  I firmly believe that leadership comes down from the top.  If no one in the President’s Cabinet has ever run a business or has practical knowledge of how to run a business, chances are that the perspective of a businessman will not be represented in Cabinet meetings.  Businessmen are not evil–they are the backbone of the American economy.  Until those in the current administration begin to respect the contributions made by the average businessman, they will probably not be able to improve the economy.  They are simply looking in the wrong place.

On July 30, the Washington Examiner posted a list of some of the eithics charges against Charles Rangel.  The list included things that were unique to the House of Representatives ethics rules, but it also included things that are generally regarded as breaking the law.  The list included using official stationery to solicit funds for a New York college center named after him (obviously a House ethics issue), accepting favors and donations that could be seen to influence decisions in Congress (House ethics and possible corruption issue), a pattern of submitting financial statements that were incomplete and inaccurate (this is the man who is in charge of writing the tax code), misuse of a rent-subsidized apartment in New York City (I suspect he is not the only person guilty of that) and finally, failing to report rental income for a period of eight years (I strongly suggest you don’t try that one at home!).  As you look at this list, you could justifiably say that individually each item really doesn’t amount to much–he didn’t murder anyone and there are no bank robberies listed.  But what would happen to you or me if the IRS discovered that we had not reported income on a rental property for eight years?

Meanwhile, yesterday’s New York Post reported on Charlie Rangel’s 80th birthday party.  Congressman Rangel partied as if nothing were wrong.  Well, something is wrong.  As a Congressman, this man has shown a pattern of contempt for any law or ethics rule that would prevent him for doing something he wanted to do.  That in itself is more important than the specifics of the laws and rules broken.  One of the tenets of America is that all men are equal under the law.  The problem with Charlie Rangel is that he considers himself more equal than the rest of us.

Yesterday Ed Morrissey at Hot Air which cited a Pew Research Center claim that 8% of all American babies are born to illegal aliens. 

According to the article:

“Undocumented immigrants make up slightly more than 4% of the U.S. adult population. However, their babies represented twice that share, or 8%, of all births on U.S. soil in 2008, according to the nonpartisan Pew Research Center’s report.”

The lure of having your child declared an American citizen because they were born in America is powerful.  However, when you closely examine what the 14th Amendment actually says, the assumption that the children of illegal immigrants are automatically granted citizenship may not be correct.

Mr. Morrissey concludes:

“The 14th Amendment makes one condition in its language: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  So far as I know, that has led courts to consider children born of legal immigrants citizens of the US, since they submitted themselves to the jurisdiction of America and its laws. A case can be made that the clause could restrict birthright citizenship to only those legally in the country — and it would certainly be easier to float a test case with a deportation order than it would be to amend the Constitution.  Why not let the courts have a crack at it first?”

I would feel more comfortable with that idea if I trusted the courts, but actually, the courts have a better chance of dealing with this problem than an attempt at amending the Constitution.

Power Line reported yesterday:

“Two days ago, the Washington Times reported that the union that represents rank-and-file field agents at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement unanimously passed a “vote of no confidence” for the agency’s leadership. The National Immigration and Customs Enforcement Council of the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 7,000 ICE agents and employees, stated that ICE has “abandoned” its core mission of protecting the public to support a political agenda favoring amnesty. The vote, by the Union’s Council, was 259-0.”

Aside from the fact that the mainstream media has not bothered to report on this, what does it mean?  The union denounced John Morton, head of the ICE, and Phyllis Coven, an assistant director in the office of detention policy and planning.  The union stated that public safety and the integrity of the agency would be better served without these two people.  The article lists a number of problems the unions have with the way that immigration law is currently being enforced (or not).

The article concludes:

“The Obama administration has been touting the fact that deportations of illegal aliens have increased by about 10 percent over what they were under President Bush. But according to the union, illegal immigrants now being held in state and local jails seek out ICE agents for deportation to avoid prosecution, conviction and prison terms. Criminal aliens, it says, “openly brag” that they are taking advantage of a broken immigration system and will be back in the United States within days to commit crimes — while U.S. citizens arrested for the same offenses serve prison sentences.”

I recently heard a speaker list the things that bring unity and security to a country.  They were–a common culture, a common language, and secure borders.  I can’t remember who the speaker was, but I agree with him and believe that secure borders are a matter of national security as well as the preservation of the country.

Yesterday’s USA Today posted a story about policymakers in Washington reconsidering how much the government should be doing to help people own their own homes.  I should explain that my husband and I bought our first house in 1969 with the help of a Veteran’s Administration loan.  Although I have been a homeowner for most of my life, I am very naive about the intricacies of buying a house or how that has changed over the past 70 years.

The article points out:

“…Freddie and Fannie, with their government backing, allowed the proliferation of 30-year, fixed-rate mortgages — a product that lenders would otherwise shun. Reason: Long-term, fixed-rate loans struggle in any interest rate scenario. If rates rise, banks are squeezed, because their revenue remains fixed even though they have to pay more for deposits and other funding. If rates fall, homeowners refinance. “No rational market participant is going to bear that risk,” Date says.

“Long-term fixed-rate mortgages make sense only if the government is absorbing some of the risk. Reforming housing finance, Date says, could jeopardize the future of long-term, fixed-rate mortgages or raise interest rates on them, perhaps a quarter to half a percentage point.”

I don’t necessarily agree with that statement.  Banks make money on thirty-year fixed rate loans.  The interest over time on those loans is at least twice the value of the house.  The fees banks charge for refinancing home loans vs the cost to the bank allow them to make a profit on the refinance.  I don’t begrudge them their profit, but I don’t believe the thirty-year mortgage is a bad product for the banks.

The article points out what the housing mark was like before World War II:

“…Banks demanded 50% down payments for mortgages that would last just five or six years; then, the homeowners would have to cough up the balance in a balloon payment. Homeownership remained mired around 40%.”

One of the conclusions of the article:

“High homeownership rates also impose economic costs. They lock workers into houses that can be tough to sell, especially in recessions, so it’s harder for them to move to find new jobs. The percentage of Americans changing addresses hit a record low 11.9% in 2008 before bouncing up a bit last year; the so-called moving rate exceeded 20% as recently as 1985.

“Florida has found that U.S. cities with high homeownership rates tend to lag behind other cities in job creation and earnings. He argues that the government should nudge the homeownership rate lower, perhaps to around 55%, by cutting the subsidies that prop it up.”

Again, I disagree.  One of the main things that props up home ownership is the tax deduction for mortgage interest.  Although that tax deduction is not what it used to be due to low interest rates, on a large mortgage it is significant, along with the fact that building equity in a house over a lifetime is a good thing.

Based on personal experience, I have a few comments.  My father was a returning World War II veteran.  A few years after returning from Europe, he and my mother bought a house in Levittown, New York–their first house–small houses built specifically to be affordable housing for returning veterans.  Because of the corporate structure in the 1950’s, by the time I entered sixth grade, I had attended five different elementary schools–as my father moved up the corporate ladder, we got transferred.  I am really not sure I would recommend that experience (although it helps me relate to the military branch of my family).  (I learned about the War Between the States in North Carolina in fifth grade, then learned about the Civil War in New Jersey in seventh grade!)

In my (humble?) opinion, the thirty-year mortgage would survive without government intervention.  Home ownership, because of current tax breaks, is a good thing right now.  If those tax breaks go away, it might be time to reconsider.  Also, generally speaking, over a lifetime of home ownership, equity will be built and some wealth acquired.  I am not an economist, but unless that changes, owning a home is a good thing.  I don’t think it makes sense to aim for a lower percentage of home ownership.  Most homeowners take pride in their homes and work to keep that investment in good shape.  Home ownership is part of being a responsible adult and meeting your obligations.  Maybe the problem is that our society has lost its sense of responsibility, not that the government is helping too many of us buy houses.

CBN News is reporting today that on Tuesday Rifqa Bary turned eighteen.  As you may recall from a previous RightWingGranny article, Rifqa was the subject of a lawsuit when she fled her parents home after converting to Christianity.  She publicly stated that because of her conversion, she feared for her life.

Rifqa Bary feared what is commonly termed an ‘honor killing.’  Under Muslim Sharia law, it is acceptable to kill a family member if they are believed to have brought disgrace upon the family.  Converting to Christianity would fall into that category.  Unfortunately, there has been an increase in honor killings in America in recent years.

The Daily Beast on June 8 of this year posted an article about honor killings in America.  Their post stated:

“Honor killings don’t only happen in the Middle East: The brutal Arizona killing last year of Noor Almaleki by her own father has catalyzed Human Rights Watch and Marie Claire magazine to join together in a campaign to renew the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which expired in 2008. Noor’s father, Faleh Almaleki, disapproved of her American lifestyle (wearing jeans, posting on MySpace) and dreams (marrying for love). He beat her and ultimately ran her over in his SUV, not once but twice, to prevent her from dishonoring the family, equating her with a “small fire” that needed to be extinguished in order to keep the family safe. He is in jail, awaiting trial for first-degree murder. “For an Iraqi, honor is the most valuable thing,” he said after his arrest. “No one messed up our life except Noor.” Noor’s mother supported him, saying, “You are not a criminal. I know how good-hearted and compassionate you are.””

I daresay that in the ‘American culture’ a man who ran over his daughter twice would not be considered good-hearted and compassionate.  If you follow the link to The Daily Beast, you will find a link to a Marie Claire article dealing with the rise of honor killings in America.

I have no idea how real the threat to Rifqa Bary is.  I do know that if the threat is real, our courts have an obligation to protect her in any way they can–restraining orders, etc.  I wish Ms. Bary a long, productive life lived outside the shadow of threats against her.  Happy Birthday, Rifqa.  May you celebrate many more.

The U.K. Guardian commented yesterday on Robert Gibbs’ remarks regarding the criticism of President Obama from the left. 

The article quotes an interview with The Hill where Robert Gibbs states:

“”I hear these people saying he’s like George Bush. Those people ought to be drug tested,” Gibbs said. “I mean, it’s crazy.”

“The press secretary dismissed the “professional left” in terms very similar to those used by their opponents on the ideological right, saying, “They will be satisfied when we have Canadian healthcare and we’ve eliminated the Pentagon. That’s not reality.””

We don’t need to get too excited about what Robert Gibbs is saying.  The Obama Administration will need to move considerably toward the center of the political spectrum to be re-elected in 2012.  Moving away from the political left is a wise move at this point.  Elections are won in the center–20% of the left will always vote left, 20% of the right will always vote right, the campaign will be for the 60% that is somewhere between the two.  The remarks of Robert Gibbs are the beginning of the courting of those votes.  The liberal base that elected Barack Obama will not be voting for Republicans under any circumstances; therefore, (according to the Obama Administration) if alienating them will insure an election victory in 2012, let’s get on with it!

CBN News posted an Associated Press article today about progress being made on a museum to commemorate September 11th.  According to the article:

“The Sept. 11 museum is taking shape 70 feet below ground, a cavernous space that provides an emotionally raw journey and ends at bedrock where huge surviving remnants and spacial voids reveal the scale of the devastation of what once was the World Trade Center.”

The design of the museum will be defined by the slurry wall that kept the Hudson River from inundating the Financial District and by other huge artifacts.  The museum is scheduled to open in 2012. 

The article explains:

“Thousands of unidentified remains of 9/11 victims will be stored in the museum, in an area reserved for the medical examiner’s office; an adjacent room will be set aside for family members. These areas will be off limits to the public.”

I am grateful that the people in charge of this project are making an effort not only to remember those who died that day and respect their loved ones, but to illustrate for the rest of us the enormous size of the tragedy.

Like Pearl Harbor, this is a site that is hallowed ground and needs to be treated as such.

Yesterday at RightWingGranny I reported on the plan by Greg Gutfeld to open a gay bar next to the site of the proposed mosque at near Ground Zero.  Mr. Gutfeld says that he is serious about his plan and is beginning to raise funds for the project. 

An article at the Washington Examiner details the response from the group preparing to build the mosque:

“…That situation is worth savoring alone but then when you find out that Gutfeld managed to get a comment from the builders of the new Park51 mosque about his project.   Their response is reproduced below:

@greggutfeld  You’re free to open whatever you like.  If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Muslims, you’re not going to build dialog

Note to the people planning to building the mosque:  You’re free to build wherever you like.  If you won’t consider the sensibilities of Americans, you’re not going to build dialog!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article about the proposed mosque on Monday.  Mr. Morrissey’s article referenced an article written by Raheel Raza and Tarek Fatah that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Monday.  From what I understand, both authors are what we would call ‘moderate Muslims’ who do not embrace the practice of what they discribe as “Fitna,” meaning “mischief-making” that is clearly forbidden in the Koran.

The article in the Ottawa Citizen concludes:

“If this mosque does get built, it will forever be a lightning rod for those who have little room for Muslims or Islam in the U.S.  We simply cannot understand why on Earth the traditional leadership of America’s Muslims would not realize their folly and back out in an act of goodwill.

“As for those teary-eyed, bleeding-heart liberals such as New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and much of the media, who are blind to the Islamist agenda in North America, we understand their goodwill.

“Unfortunately for us, their stand is based on ignorance and guilt, and they will never in their lives have to face the tyranny of Islamism that targets, kills and maims Muslims worldwide, and is using liberalism itself to destroy liberal secular democratic societies from within.”

The authors of the article in the Ottawa Citizen have no illusions about what radical Islam has done and is doing worldwide.  I just wish some of our elected officials were as willing to face the truth.

Fox News posted an article today about the State-Department-sponsored overseas tour by Feisal Abdul Rauf, the imam behind the plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero. 

The article explains:

“The State Department confirmed Tuesday that the administration is sponsoring Feisal Abdul Rauf’s trip to Qatar, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates, which is described as part of a program to send Muslims abroad to educate other countries about the role of religion in the United States. Rauf made similar trips during the Bush administration.”

This is not a good use of taxpayer money, regardless of whether or not it has been done before. 

The American Center for Law and Justice has said it will file a protest letter with the State Department demanding the government halt its sponsorship of the trip.

The article states:

“Rauf has emerged as a controversial figure because of his refusal to acknowledge Hamas as a terrorist organization, which is how the U.S. government classifies the group. The imam told “60 Minutes” in 2001 that U.S. foreign policy could be considered an “accessory” to the 9/11 attacks, though he said in the same interview, “Fanaticism and terrorism have no place in Islam.””

I understand that the goal of the State Department is to bring harmony between America and other nations, but at some point we need to realize the characteristics of some of the people we are dealing with in the Muslim world.  There may be moderate, peace-loving Muslims, but there are also Muslims who kill doctors bringing sight to poor Afghanis and celebrate the act.  To deny that some of the people we are dealing with are not peace-living is naive at best and stupid at least. 

I resent the fact that my tax dollars are paying for this trip.  I have no doubt that Mr. Rauf will use this trip as a fund-raiser to finance his mosque.  The State Department has no business sponsoring this trip. 

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article on the progress of the latest stimulus bill. This week, the House of Representatives is taking a short break from their vacation to return to Washington to pass a $26 billion spending package partially intended to keep states from laying off teachers.  Critics are calling it a “bailout for teachers unions.”

In order to make the bill deficit neutral, the Senate version of the bill cuts $12 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance (food stamps).  The cuts will begin in 2014.  Unfortunately, this is typical of the kind of thing the current Congress is doing.  The money for the teachers union is being spent now.  The cuts will not take effect until 2014.  By that time, people will have forgotten what the cuts were about and the money will be restored without an argument.  I am sure that somehow the Democrats will find a way to blame the Republicans for denying food stamps to hungry people.  Can you imaging trying to run your household budget that way?

The article states:

“(The bill)…includes no requirements that school districts balance their budgets or report on whether the money is making a measurable effect in the classroom.  Support for the bill has mainly been driven by the Federation for American Teachers, the largest group that represents teachers’ interests, which has donated more than $1.7 million to Democrats in 2010.”

There are better ways to run a government.  We need to remember that in November.

The question everyone is asking during ‘recovery summer’ is, “Where are the jobs?”  Well, an awful lot of them are in the federal government.  CNS News reported today on the findings of a Heritage Foundation study:

“The Heritage report also found that government jobs – in addition to being more lucrative – are almost impossible to lose. Despite a national unemployment rate that remained at 9.5 percent, federal employment has grown during the recession.
 
“”Federal employees enjoy job security irrespective of the state of the economy,” the study documented. “Since the recession began, federal employment has risen by 240,000 – 12 percent. The unemployment rate for federal employees has only slightly risen from 2.0 percent to 2.9 percent between 2007 and 2009.””

The study also found that:

“On average, federal employees earn 60 percent more than the average private sector employee – $79,000 vs. $50,000 respectively. Add in retirement and health care benefits and that gap grows to 85 percent.”

We have come to the point where it is time to start over.  Our federal government is out of control, and our Congressmen and Congresswomen are totally ignoring the voices of the people of America.  I firmly believe that if we do not elect a conservative-leaning Congress in November, we will not see unemployment rates drop below 8 per cent in the future.  There was a time when as Americans we did not have to pay a lot of attention to what our elected officials in Washington were doing.  Those days are gone.  Every American needs to be an informed voter and a government watchdog.  It’s time to step up to the plate.

We have all heard the varied opinions on building a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero.  The building that would contain the mosque is the building where the tail section of one of the jets fell on September 11.  Generally speaking, New Yorkers and Americans seem to oppose the mosque.  For some reason, our elected officials seem determined to allow the mosque to be built.  One of the latest wrinkles in the discussion is the revealing of the fact that the people who want to build the mosque do not yet own all of the land involved.  As we debate the sensitivity of building a mosque at this location, ask who is paying for the mosque, and wonder about the beliefs of the person who will lead the mosque, one New Yorker seems to have come up with an interesting approach to the whole debate.

Yesterday Hot Air reported that Greg Gutfeld has announced that he is seeking investors to open a gay bar in an available commercial location near the mosque to be built near Ground Zero. 

Mr. Gutfeld states:

“This is not a joke. I’ve already spoken to a number of investors, who have pledged their support in this bipartisan bid for understanding and tolerance.

“As you know, the Muslim faith doesn’t look kindly upon homosexuality, which is why I’m building this bar. It is an effort to break down barriers and reduce deadly homophobia in the Islamic world.”

If we are truly to be open-armed and tolerant in allowing this mosque to be built, should we not, in turn, expect tolerance from those people building it?  Massachusetts, where because of a court decision gay marriage is legal, drove Catholic adoption agencies from the state by forcing them to choose between one of the major tenets of their religion and keeping the agencies open.  The state required them to allow gay couples to adopt children, but because of the teachings of their church, they could not in good conscience comply with that law, and left the state.  Should we require the people building that mosque to allow homosexuals on their staff?  Will any laws regarding civil rights be applied to this mosque?

This could be an interesting development in the situation.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by Michael P. Fleischer, president of Bogen Communications Inc. in Ramsey, N.J.   Mr. Fleischer explains why his is reluctant to expand his company and hire new people right now.

He explains the impact of the recently passed healthcare reform bill on his company:

“Every year, we negotiate a renewal to our health coverage. This year, our provider demanded a 28% increase in premiums–for a lesser plan. This is in part a tax increase that the federal government has co-opted insurance providers to collect. We had never faced an increase anywhere near this large; in each of the last two years, the increase was under 10%.”

He uses the example of an employee named Sally to illustrate the impact of government programs on his company:

“When you add it all up, it costs $74,000 to put $44,000 in Sally’s pocket and to give her $12,000 in benefits. Bottom line: Governments impose a 33% surtax on Sally’s job each year.”

He explains why he is not hiring right now:

“And even if the economic outlook were more encouraging, increasing revenues is always uncertain and expensive. As much as I might want to hire new salespeople, engineers and marketing staff in an effort to grow, I would be increasing my company’s vulnerability to government decisions to raise taxes, to policies that make health insurance more expensive, and to the difficulties of this economic environment.

“A life in business is filled with uncertainties, but I can be quite sure that every time I hire someone my obligations to the government go up. From where I sit, the government’s message is unmistakable: Creating a new job carries a punishing price.”

If the Obama Administration truly wanted to see job growth, there would be no question about extending the Bush tax cuts–it would happen almost automatically.  As far as stating ‘the cost of the tax cuts’, we need to remember that the money being discussed belongs to the taxpayers–not the government.  Tax cuts DO NOT cost anything–they just put more money in the pockets of Americans.  If you want to argue that some Americans are more worthy than others to keep their own money, you may be living in the wrong country.

The source for this article is a Newsbusters article from June of this year.  Bill Press is a radio talk show host.  He is getting some press right now for his statements about Glenn Beck holding a rally at the LIncoln Memorial on the anniversary of the Martin Luther King, Jr., “I Have A Dream” speech.  Press wrote in a June 16 post of his blog, “If you ask me, that’s like granting al Qaeda permission to hold a rally on September 11 – at Ground Zero.  What the h___ were those bureaucrats at the Park Service thinking?”

Mr. Press overlooks the fact that the rally is a non-partisan event.  Glenn Beck’s website describes the event as follows:

“Throughout history America has seen many great leaders and noteworthy citizens change her course. It is through their personal virtues and by their example that we are able to live as a free people. On August 28, come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future.

“Join the Special Operations Warrior Foundation, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and many more for this non-political event that pays tribute to America’s service personnel and other upstanding citizens who embody our nation’s founding principles of integrity, truth and honor.

“Our freedom is possible only if we remain virtuous. Help us restore the values that founded this great nation. On August, 28th, come join us in our pledge to restore honor at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC.”

It seems to me that Glenn Beck has the same rights as any other American to hold a rally on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  Many Americans at this time are feeling the need to re-connect with the founding principles of our country.  It appears that those people who will attend this rally are a reflection of that feeling.

On January 29,2010, U. S. News & World Report posted an article by John Rother, the executive vice president for policy and strategy for AARP.  The article deals with the idea of means testing social security benefits.  Mr. Rother opposes the idea, as do I.

On one of the political analysis shows recently, I heard a panelist say, “Why should we pay social security to Warren Buffet?”  The ignorance of that question amazes me.  One of the things to remember in discussing tax policy is that whatever behavior is rewarded by tax programs will increase, whatever behavior is taxed heavily will decrease.  To place a means test on social security benefits is to tell people that they will be penalized for saving money and planning for retirement.  It is to say to people that even though money was taken out of their paychecks since they began working, that money would go to people who had been less responsible.

Why should we pay social security to Warren Buffet?  Because he has had money taken from him all his working life on the promise that it would be paid to him in retirement.  What are we saying about the trustworthiless of the American government if we break that promise?  Should we instead be looking at the Congressmen who have been robbing the Social Security fund since the 1960’s, when they opted out of Social Security and set up their own retirement fund.  Our tax dollars subsidize that fund and its generous retirement benefits, but oddly enough, Congress has never taken money out of their retirement fund and put it into the general treasury. 

In his article, Mr. Rother points out:

“Social Security’s enduring popularity reflects the insurance nature of the program: Recipients have an earned right to their retirement benefits. Everyone who pays into the program is entitled to benefits. If you work long enough in covered employment, you qualify, no matter where you stand on the income ladder. Almost everyone with a job has a personal stake in keeping the program strong. And let’s not forget the matter of fairness. Everyone who contributes through the payroll tax–including the affluent–deserves a fair return on his or her contributions. This expectation is not an exaggerated sense of entitlement. It’s reasonable.”

The government does not have the right to renege on the promise of Social Security.  The system does need to be revised to keep it solvent, but that should not involve penalizing people for planning ahead.

I would like to explain the scarcity of articles at right wing granny this weekend.  I have a new granddaughter, and my husband and I drove down to New York to see her.  She arrived on Tuesday and is grandchild number nine.  She is beautiful.  Her name is Gianna.  I will be back on my normal posting schedule tomorrow.

First of all, I would like to say that I love school teachers.  I raised one.  I also think that whatever kindergarten teachers are paid, it is not enough (that probably applies to high school and junior high school teachers as well).  I love little children, but the thought of more than one or two of them at a time is truly frightening to me.  That said, I will continue.

The Hill is reporting today that the House will be called back into session to pass the latest stimulus bill that provides $16 billion in extended Medicaid benefits and $10 billion in education funding for the states.  After the bill is passed, the unions plan to ramp up their efforts to support Democrats in the November election.  Since the money will prevent many union members from losing their jobs, the union strategy is to attack those Republicans that oppose the spending.

I need to make a note here about the bill.  The bill includes $16 billion in extended Medicaid benefits.  This is a down payment to the states to keep state budgets from collapsing under the weight of Obamacare.  Here is Massachusetts, we have already seen that government run healthcare results in financial and healthcare trends opposite than what was promised or expected (note:  expectations varied according to where you sit on the political spectrum).  The cost of health insurance has increased more quickly than in other parts of the country, people are dropping healthcare covereage because they cannot afford it, private healthcare companies are losing money (and if the trend continues, will no longer do business in this state), and lines in emergency lines are growing longer.

The article reports:

“”We are set to launch a robust field plan across the country during the month of August, including advertising and grassroots events,” said Gerry McEntee, president of the Association of Federal, State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), in a statement. “We intend to highlight the clear choice Americans will make in November between Democrats who are working to protect jobs and move the economy forward and Republicans who are willing to wreck the economy for political gain.””

Why is spending $26 billion we do not have moving the economy forward? 

The article concludes:

“The United Steel Workers will also be active this month, said the union’s president, Leo Gerard.

“”During this recess, we will be ramping up our on-the-ground operations, especially in the heavy industrialized states where our membership is the strongest,” Gerard said. “Our objective is to make sure we define the choice between the likes of John Boehner and a Nancy Pelosi, between a Harry Reid and a Sharron Angle.””

The name of this website is right wing granny.  As right wing granny, I have to say that my choice might not agree with his.

As an American, I realize that America plays a major part in what happens around the world.  We have been a world leader since World War II.  However, everything that happens in the world is not necessarily related to anything we have done or are doing.  To assume that the world revolves around America is not only self-centered, it is stupid.

CNS News posted an article yesterday about the Country Reports on Terrorism 2009 at the U.S. Department of State, which was released this week. 

According to the article:

“Counterterrorism Coordinator Daniel Benjamin said that the Obama administration’s strategy to fight terrorism around the world includes determining America’s own role in possibly increasing the number of terrorists.” 

Note to Mr. Benjamin–terrorism has always existed.  It has been used against civilian populations during war ever since war has existed.  We have all heard stories of civilian populations being terrorized when a country is conquered.  Tyrannical governments have used forms of terrorism to control the populations they rule.  If you look at the way the Taliban treated the citizens of Afghanistan when they were in charge of the country, terrorism was really not a stretch for them.  There was little regard for innocent life, and there was no problem killing innocent people for a ‘greater cause.’ 

Isn’t the root of terrorism the idea of killing innocent people for a ‘greater cause?’  The logic of suicide attacks falls down when you try and figure out what they accomplish other than terror.  What did the blowing up of Flight 103 over Lockerbee, Scotland, actually accomplish?  It killed a lot of innocent people, saddened many families, and cost the world a lot of human potential, but what did it actually accomplish?  We need to understand that terrorism will exist regardless of what America does.  We are not capable of controlling or appeasing terrorists to the point where they will become peaceful world citizens.  It’s not about us.  The people who have websites to encourage terrorism enjoy some perverted sense of power when innocent people are killed in the name of their god.  You notice that the people who host these websites are not the people blowing themselves up.

The article concludes:

“The report also outlines the increasing radicalization of people in the United States, including U.S. citizens, and U.S. citizens abroad who are now actively planning and supporting terrorist attacks. Those include Anwar al-Aulaqi, who is linked to both Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 people last year at Ft. Hood army base in Texas, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who tried to set off a bomb in a plane landing in Detroit, Mich., on Christmas Day.”

The problem with terrorists is not America–the problem with terrorists is terrorists.

Stroube Smith at the Washington Times posted an article yesterday about the sixty-fifth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima.   Mr. Smith points out that Hiroshima was not a military target, but a civilian city. 

The article concludes:

“In the war’s aftermath, there was second-guessing as to whether Truman should have authorized the use of the bombs. In reality, he had no choice. No leader of a democracy could reject the use of a weapon that could save a single one of his people’s lives.

“Casualty estimates for an invasion of Japan were staggering. Estimated losses from a campaign to take the first home island ranged from 300,000 to 1 million. The Army was ordering body bags and medical supplies and trying to find medics, nurses and doctors to deal with casualties of that magnitude.”

President Truman made a difficult decision that saved both American and Japanese lives in the end.  The atomic bombs on Hiroshim and Nagasaki destroyed cities and killed civilians, but they ended a war and actually reduced the number of casualties.  We have currently forgotten how to fight with all we have.  I am hoping we will remember how to wage war successfully sometime in the near future.

Yesterday the American Thinker posted an article yesterday about  USTOGAZA, the organization that is planning to launch a Gaza-bound ship named The Audacity of Hope that is intended to “break the blockade of Gaza.  They are hosting a fund-raising event in New York City.  Please follow the link above to the American Thinker article to see exactly who will attend the fundraiser.  The article was written by Lauri Regan and provides a lot of background as to who these people are and their past actions and associations.  It is sad to see the world’s media portraying Israel as the ‘bad guy’ here when Israel has treated the Arabs who live in her country better than her neighbors treat their own people.