Obamacare is not even in full effect yet, and already there are major problems.  USA Today is reporting today that 30 companies have received exemptions from the provisions of Obamacare.  The Department of Health and Human Services said it granted waivers in late September so workers with such plans wouldn’t lose coverage from employers who might choose instead to drop health insurance altogether.

According to the article:

“”The big political issue here is the president promised no one would lose the coverage they’ve got,” says Robert Laszewski, chief executive officer of consulting company Health Policy and Strategy Associates. “Here we are a month before the election, and these companies represent 1 million people who would lose the coverage they’ve got.””

The article closes with this comment:

“The biggest single waiver, for 351,000 people, was for the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, a New York union providing coverage for city teachers. The waivers are effective for a year and were granted to insurance plans and companies that showed that employee premiums would rise or that workers would lose coverage without them, Santillo says.”

Keep in mind that all this is happening before Obamacare even takes full effect.  We need to elect a Congress that will first defund this disaster, then repeal and replace it with legislation that includes tort reform, tax breaks for individuals buying their own health insurance, and portability of insurance across state lines.  Remember that in order to stay in business and provide the quality of healthcare all Americans have come to expect, health insurance companies and medical providers need to be profitable.  We need to remember that profit is not a crime.  A vote for any Democrat running for Congress is a vote for Obamacare to continue its destructive ways.

Israel National News reported today that:

“Former United States President Bill Clinton said Tuesday that forcing Israel to surrender Judea and Samaria to the American-backed Palestinian Authority would take away much of the motivation for terrorism around the world.”

Former President Clinton stated:

“It will take about half the impetus in the whole world — not just the region, the whole world — for terror away,” he told an audience of Egyptian businessmen from the American Chamber of Commerce in Egypt. “It would have more impact by far than anything else that could be done.”

Does he think for one minute that the terrorism of the Taliban is about Israel?  Was the Taliban thinking of Israel in 2001 when they destroyed the two massive ancient Buddhas in Bamiyan in central Afghanistan carved into sandstone cliffs?  Were terrorists thinking about Israel when they bombed the Spanish trains or the British subway system?

Terrorism is all that certain groups of Muslims practice.  It really doesn’t need a cause–occasionally they will find an excuse to put forth.  Terrorists are a group of people with a thirst for violence and a desire to kill innocent people, they will find a convenient cause wherever they can.  The thing to remember about Muslim terrorists is that if they are somehow successful in destroying Israel, America will be their next target.  There are Imams who have expressed the agenda as, “First the Saturday people, then the Sunday people.”  America is not immune, and if we do not stand up for Israel and make sure she is allowed to keep the territories that make her a defensible nation, we will seriously regret our actions in the very near future.

On Monday, the Fresno Bee posted an article on California’s Proposition 19, which says:

“Should California legalize marijuana beyond current medical use to permit all adults 21 and over to use and possess pot?”

This is an intesting proposition for many reasons.  First of all, does anyone remember that when California legalized marijuana for medical use, opponents said that legalizing marijuana for medical use was the beginning of a drive to generally legalize it?  Well, I guess they knew what they were talking about.

The move to legalize pot is supported by:

• Large unions such as the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), State Council and United Food & Commercial Workers Union, also Oaksterdam University marijuana trade school, and California NAACP

The move to legalize pot is opposed by:

• Law enforcement groups, such as the California Police Chiefs Association and the California Narcotics Officers Association, also political candidates and officeholders Jerry Brown, Meg Whitman, Dianne Feinstein, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and also The California Chamber of Commerce  

The supporters claim legalization will raise revenues and avoid budget cuts, that legalization will reduce crime, weaken drug cartels, and create a framework to prevent minors from accessing marijuana.  They also claim legalization will retain employers’ existing rights to fire or discipline employees or address pot consumption that impairs job performance.

The opponents claim legalization will not reduce crime–that it will in fact result in more impaired drivers on the roads.  The bill contains anti-discrimination language that could prevent employers from enforcing rules against marijuana without clear evidence of impairment.  Legalization could also lead to private industries and public agencies losing federal funding for failing to meet “drug-free workplace” standards.

The article also lists the people contributing money for an against legalization.  It is an interesting read.

There is one other aspect of this proposition appearing on the California ballot at this time.  Democrats in Congress are behind in generic polls.  The key to the 2010 Congressional Elections will be voter turnout.  Senior citizens are beginning to realize that they have been screwed by Obamacare and are quite likely to vote Republican.  One way to counter that vote is to bring out the younger vote, which has trended Democrat in the past (and overwhelmingly supported President Obama).  One way to bring out the youth vote is to put legalization of marijuana on the ballot.  I haven’t seen any polls, but my guess is that most of the population between the ages of 18 and 25 supports legalization.

Politics is a full-contact sport.  Placing legalization of marijuana on the ballot in California during this Congressional election is an example of that.  If placing this proposition on the ballot results in Democrat victories in Congress and the governorship, look for states with a lot of electoral college votes to have similar propositions on their ballots in 2012!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported yesterday that beginning in 2013, 3M will no longer cover retirees with its corporate health insurance plans. 

According to the article:

“Instead, the company will direct retirees to Medicare-backed insurance programs, and will provide reimbursement for that coverage. It’ll also reimburse retirees who are too young for Medicare; the company didn’t provide further details.

“The company made the changes known in a memo to employees Friday; news of the move was reported in The Wall Street Journal and confirmed Monday by 3M spokeswoman Jackie Berry.”

The healthcare law was written with incentives for companies to keep retirees on their insurance plans until 2014, but evidently the incentives were not enough.  The law included a $5 billion fund for employers and unions to offset the cost of retiree health benefits. 

I suspect that this is only the beginning.  As more and more retirees lose their healthcare benefits, they will wind up going into Medicare and government programs.  Remember, the healthcare bill seriously cut Medicare funds, just as the baby boomers are retiring.  This will mean a loss of the quality healthcare that senior citizens have previously enjoyed.  The other thing to notice here is that this all takes place after the 2012 presidential election.  This is also by design.

If Americans are paying attention, they will elect a Congress that will repeal and replace Obamacare before it can do any serious damage.  Obamacare is not what we were told it was.  Please vote Republican.  A vote for a Democrat is a vote to deny healthcare to senior citizens.

One of the things that can end a political career very quickly is a sexual scandal–of any kind.  Republicans seem to have learned that lesson only too well.  There is an article in The Hill today stating that “The Ohio Republican (John Boehner) privately told a handful of male Republicans to avoid getting drunk and partying with female lobbyists at after-hour parties on Capitol Hill, according to a July report in the New York Post.”

According to the article:

“Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) won’t meet with women behind closed doors on Capitol Hill, fearing how staffers and aides could perceive it.

“”It was Bill Graham’s policy, and if it’s good enough for Billy Graham, it’s good enough for me,” Wamp said.”

This policy may seem a little awkward, but I am totally in favor of it.  There is nothing wrong with bringing two or three members of your staff along to any meeting with a member of the opposite sex.  To do otherwise is to invite gossip or worse.  It is a shame that we live in a world where either would be a problem, but the fact remains that we do live in that world.

Billy Graham stated at one point that he would not even walk into a supposedly empty hotel room without a member of his staff.  That protected him from any appearance of scandal or wrongdoing.  That policy served him well–there was never even a hint of scandal associated with his name. 

Congress might be more respected by the average American voter if its members chose to avoid even the appearance of misconduct.

Yesterday I posted an article about the panel on This Week with Christiane Amanpour discussing the fear of Muslims in America.  Yesterday, the Washington Times posted an article about the panel discussion.

The article points out:

“As Mr. Choudary indicated, Islamist “engagement” with the United States is a holy obligation. Last week, the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the leading proponent of global Shariah law, held a conference on “Islam and Muslims in America” in cooperation with the American Islamic College in Chicago. OIC Secretary General Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu called on Muslims in the United States to become involved in all aspects of American life, including local and national politics. The Obama administration gave its imprimatur to the gathering by sending its own small portion, including special envoy to the OIC, Rashad Hussain, Dalia Mogahed who works with the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and Farah Pandith, the State Department’s special representative to Muslim communities.”

The article further relates the efforts of the OIC to have so-called “Islamophobia” recognized by the international community as a form of racism prosecutable under international law. 

The article further points out:

“Last year, the Obama administration co-sponsored with Egypt a U.N. Human Rights Council resolution against “racial and religious stereotyping,” which offered cover to the Islamists in their drive to put any criticism of their religion off limits.”

The question eventually will be: Are Americans willing to defend their rights to free speech?

There was something that occurred to me while watching the panel on This Week.  Mr. Choudary critized Daisy Khan because she was not appropriately dressed (in his opinion) as a Muslim woman.  Daisy Khan describes herself as a moderate Muslim who believes in making room for all believers.  Mr. Choudary denouced her as not being a practicing Muslim.  There is another aspect to this.  Mrs. Khan is working to put a mosque at Ground Zero.  In the Muslim tradition, mosques are built at the site of battles to signify victory.  Mr. Choudary speaks of a Sharia flag flying over the White House.  They both are heading in the same direction–it’s just that one of them sounds a lot less threatening as she heads there!

Walter Williams is  a professor of economics at George Mason University.  He was the graduation speaker at the college graduation of one of my daughters.  He is also an occasional guest host on the Rush Limbaugh radio show.  He is a brilliant man with a thorough understanding of economics.

He posted an article at Creators.com citing how politicians take advantage of the economic ignorance of the American voter.  He mentions an area of the study of economics called “tax incidence.”   This is the study of which people actually bear the burden of a tax when it is levied.  He cites the example of a tax levied on gasoline retailers–when it is increased some of the tax is passed on to the consumer in the form of higher gasoline prices. 

He explains in this article:

“What about the politician who tells us that he’s not going to raise taxes on the middle class; instead, he’s going to raise corporate income taxes as means to get rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government? If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it will have one of three responses, or some combination thereof. One response is to raise the price of its product, so who bears the burden? Another response is to lower dividends; again, who bears the burden? Yet another response is to lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of the tax.”  

The way to increase the amount of money that comes into the United States Treasury is not to increase taxes–when taxes increase, economic activity slows down.  The way to increase the amount of money coming into the United States Treasury is to increase the productivity of the American people.  The more people who have jobs, the less people on unemployment, as the number of people working increases, the number of people paying taxes increases, as less people are unemployed, less unemployment is paid.  This helps balance the budget.

The high unemployment rate now is due to uncertainty on the part of businesses as to what their tax and healthcare expenses will be next year.  Businessmen are unwilling to hire anyone until they can begin to plan an operating budget for next year.

All we need to get this economy moving is to elect Congressmen who will get the government’s hands out of small business–both in the form of excessive taxation and excessive regulation.  That is the change that needs to be made in order to restart the economy.

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that as of Monday afternoon, the use of state-issued welfare debit cards at casinos across the country and on cruise ships will be cut off.  This decision was reached after the Los Angeles Times reported on the use of the cards to withdraw money in Las Vegas and on cruise ships around the world.  Over $69 million of welfare money was accessed in every state of the United States other than California, as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam.  The Times collected the data on this from the California Department of Social Services.

According to the article:

“Department of Social Services Director John Wagner said the move is part of the Schwarzenegger administration’s commitment to “rooting out waste, fraud and abuse in these programs” and “to ensure these resources are going to the people they are intended for.”

“In June, the state cut off access to benefits in California casinos and strip clubs after The Times reported that the Electronic Benefits Transfer cards worked in those businesses too.”

And we wonder why California is going broke!  I am not sure exactly what the solution to the problem of misuse of welfare money is, but I am reminded of how a friend of mine who is a Pastor dealt with street people asking him for money.  He would take them to a nearby eatery and buy them lunch.  He never gave money, he just made sure they had at least one good meal.  In principle, that is what we need to do.  I don’t want to see anyone go hungry, but at some point we need to realize that there are people who live among us who do not handle money responsibly.  To simply give these people money with no strings attached is folly.  We are supporting alcohol, drug and gambling habits that are a drain on our society as a whole.  We need to find a way to help these people rather than to subsidize their self-destructive behavior.

“We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”

          C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

This article is based on three articles–a Daily Caller article from yesterday, and two Ed Morrissey articles from Hot Air posted yesterday, HotAir, and Hot Air. 

The Daily Caller article dealt with the trash left behind by the crowd.  If you follow the link to their article, you will see one picture–there are other pictures of the mess all over the internet.  Just as a contrast, there was no litter left after the Glenn Beck rally.  My conclusion–the people who attended the Glenn Beck rally obviously had better manners and more concern for the earth than the crowd at the One Nation Working Together Rally.  If you are going to talk to me about carbon footprints and pollution, you best learn to pick up after yourself first.  The conservatives are always being accused of not caring about the environment, yet they cleaned up the area and left it in the condition they found it.  That in itself should be an object lesson for anyone who is willing to pay attention.

Ed Morrissey reported in the first article in Hot Air:

“Nick Gillespie and the Reason TV crew spent some time at the One Nation rally, talking to the organizers and the speakers, and provide some enlightening moments. For instance, ALF-CIO chief Richard Trumka says that the auto bailout was a great idea, but refused to answer a similar question about AIG. Julian Bond says he hasn’t seen enough government yet.  Bond does say, however, that the US is a better place since 1968, while Dick Gregory claims it’s actually gotten worse.  There seems to be a new reluctance to play the race card on the Left, but it doesn’t take Nick long to get Ed Schultz to at least give him a peek at it.    Nick also stumps Mitch Kapor on how government can create jobs, which seems rather humorous since the proclaimed purpose of this rally was to highlight job creation rather than partisan politics.”

In the second Hot Air article, Ed Morrissey comments on the elusive goal of unity:

“We have seen systems that created unity, of a sort, over the past century.  They did so by stamping out dissent.  The 10:10 Global video provides an instructional look into how a demand for unity and consensus would work.  Unity on policy can be achieved in small groups, but once one gets beyond a few dozen people where the like-minded can keep out those with heterodox views, one cannot demand unity and freedom at the same time. As F. A. Hayek repeatedly pointed out in his seminal Road to Serfdom about central planning, a popular demand for unity puts people in charge who are most likely to impose it, because it has to be imposed in order to exist.  At the very least, this means that groupthink rather than individual liberty prevails, and usually requires the suppression of dissent, the punishment of the heterodox, and the end of freedom in any meaningful sense.”

Unity is not a goal–it is the occasional by-product of good public policy.

Obviously I’m a little biased on this subject (look at the name of the website)!   Hugh Hewitt posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about the Senior Citizen voting bloc.  Senior citizens vote.  In 2004, 71 per cent of senior citizens were registered to vote and voted.  In 2004, 19 percent of the voters were 65 or older.  Senior citizens have life experience, they have gained some degree of wisdom (and some degree of cynicism) in their years.  You may be able to fool them once, but you will not be able to fool them twice, which brings me to the heart of the Hugh Hewitt article.

Last week Harvard Pilgrim Health Care notified 22,000 senior citizens that the company is dropping their Medicare Advantage Plan (remember the promise, “If you llike the health care you have now, you will be able to keep it under Obamacare”).  That is only the beginning of the impact of Obamacare on senior citizens.

Last week Gloria Allred attempted to derail the California gubernatorial campaign of Meg Whitman by announcing that Meg Whitman had fired her housekeeper after the housekeeper  had revealed she had defrauded the family with fake documents and was in the country illegally.  What was Meg Whitman supposed to do?  Gloria Allred made the mistake of appearing on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show, Mark Levin’s radio show and Greta Van Susteren’s television show.  All of these people are lawyers and quite experienced in getting at the truth of any matter.  Her attack on Meg Whitman was quickly overcome by facts.

Hugh Hewitt concludes:

“And still seniors see the Grim Reaper of Obamacare coming for them.  This cycle of charge and knockdown will repeat many times in the weeks ahead, but seniors won’t lose sight of the key fact of election 2010: Democrats screwed them.

“No sideshow will trick seniors into voting approval for the party that has endangered their golden years.”

One television pundit called the weeks leading up to an election “The Silly Season.”  We are there.  Unfortunately, the Silly Season for the presidential election of 2012 will start on November 3, 2010.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article entitled, “The Lap Dog Coalition.”  I checked it out just on the basis of the name! 

The Wall Street Journal reports:

“In the House of Representatives, the 54 members of the Blue Dog Coalition are the self-described fiscal conservatives in the Democratic caucus. Unfortunately, the description doesn’t fit.”

The Blue Dogs organized a coalition after the Republican takeover of the House in 1994.  The labeled themselves conservative, but loyal, democrats. 

The article reports:

“In their first Congress, the Blue Dogs mostly lived up to the hype (albeit in an economically conservative environment). In 1995, the average Blue Dog’s score on the National Taxpayers Union’s congressional score card–which measures how well members vote on matters of taxes, spending and debt–was 52%, while the average Democratic score was 28%.”

Unfortunately, after the Democrats took the House back in 2006, things changed.  The article reports:

“Blue Dogs’ average NTU scores since then (2007), during Nancy Pelosi’s first three years as House speaker, were 10%, 15% and 18%–hardly distinguishable from the average Democratic scores of 6%, 11% and 8%.”

In a sense, this is a tribute to Nancy Pelosi’s ability to hold together the Democrat vote.  Had the Blue Dogs been willing to, they could have successfully opposed any spending and big government legislation put forth by the House of Representatives–they had the numbers. 

This is a lesson to remember in November.  Right now, at this point in American history, there is no such thing as a conservative Democrat.  As soon as any Democrat elected to the House of Representatives votes for Nancy Pelosi for speaker, they are voting for more spending and bigger government.  If you want to reverse the direction of Congress, your only option is to vote Republican in November.

This is the link to the Town Hall debate on This Week with Christiane Amanpour.  The debate includes Franklin Graham, Daisy Khan, who is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf who plans to build a mosque at Ground Zero, Robert Spencer, a British Imam by the name of Anjem Choudary and many other speakers for and against the threat of Islam.  It was a very interesting discussion.  There was an element of the discussion that tried very hard to downplay the threat of Islam to America.

At one point, Anjem Choudary, a British Imam, made the following statements within the discussion:

“Islam has a solution for all of the problems that mankind faces”

“The idea that you have moderate Muslims and radical Muslims is complete nonsense.  A  Muslim is the one who submits to the creator.  If he submits, he is practicing.”

“If you are a Muslim you submit to the Sharia….I believe that one day the flag of Islam will fly over the White House.”

We can ignore these statements or we can pay attention.  Imam Anjem Choudary represents a significant element of the leadership of Islam.  A relative of one of the victims of September 11 kept on saying that she did not understand the position of the people warning about the dangers of terrorism within the Muslin religion.

The dangerous part of this debate was the framing of the Ground Zero mosque issue as a freedom of religion or tolerance issue.  The radical element of Islam was painted as being insignificant and the call for tolerance was issued.  I believe this call for tolerance is similar to the peace agreement that was signed between Adolf Hitler and Neville Chamberlain. 

The problem with Islam is that it is not simply a religion–it is a political movement.  Countries that have Islamic governments do not allow freedom of religion and severely limit the freedom and movement of the women within their countries.  Compliance with Sharia law is enforced by the government.  The goal is to create a perfect peaceful society by preventing people from doing anything wrong.  Although that is a noble goal, it is not a realistic one.  Most societies attempt to create law and order.  The differences are in the ways that governments try to bring order.  Dictators bring order through force and creating fear among the population.  Democracies bring order through elected officials who make laws to bring order.  If we want to retain our democracy, we need to listen to the words of Imam Anjem Choudary.  He is serious.

The irony of this whole discussion was that Franklin Graham was called a hate-monger and islamaphobe for stating that Saudi Arabia does not allow freedom to practice Christianity or build Christian churches while the Imam who said that he believed that one day the flag of Sharia would fly over the White House was not criticized at all! 

On Friday, the Daily Caller posted an article by Representative Joe Pitts, who represents Pennsylvania’s Sixteenth Congressional District, detailing how the failure of Congress to extend the Bush Tax Cuts will impact taxpayers. 

Representative Pitts points out that unless Congress acts to extend the Bush Tax Cuts, the nation will see a $3.8 trillion tax increase on January 1, 2011.  When Democrat leaders announced that the House of Representatives would adjourn without considering acting on taxes, every Republican and 39 Democrats voted against adjournment. 

In the article Representative Pitts named some of the tax increases coming to average Americans:

• The Child Tax Credit changes from $1,000 per child to $500 per child.
• The marriage penalty returns.  The standard deduction for married couples is currently twice the amount of the deduction for single people.  As of January 1, the standard deduction for married couples changes to $9,750.  It will be $5,800 for single taxpayers.
• The top rate of Capital Gains will go from 15 percent to 20 percent.  The tax rate on qualified dividends will change from 15 percent to 39.6 percent.  According to Representative Pitts, more than 26 million Americans will pay $1,240 more on investment income in 2011.  More than one-third of those Americans are Senior Citizens who depend on investment income to live.  One accounting firm reports that 65 percent of dividends were on tax returns of people making less than $100,000.  One third of dividends were on tax returns of people making less than $50,000 a year.

The expected tax increases will have a negative impact on the overall value of the stock market.  As much as the White House likes to demonize Wall Street, many young people in the work force are depending on Wall Street for their retirement income.  The abundance of 401k plans in the workplace is (among other things) a reflection of the lack of confidence in Social Security.  There are very few major companies who do not have 401k plans.

It was an act of cowardice to adjourn without dealing with the tax situation, but keep in mind that there is a deficit panel that is to report to Congress AFTER THE ELECTION.  At that point, I expect to see major tax increases in many areas.  The only way to stop those increases (and cut spending and growth of government) is to vote Republican in November.  The Democrat Congress has shown that they simply cannot be counted on to control spending or taxes.  They need to be sent home.  If the new Republican Congress cannot control spending or taxes, they also need to be sent home in 2012.  We need to elect people who will do their job!

We live in a representative republic.  The government is supposed to work for the people.  Most of the time that is true, but occasionally, there are problems.  When there is a problem, we have laws to protect the people who reveal it, and our government has an obligation to correct whatever problem has been uncovered.

Unfortunately, the system has not worked very well in the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case.  If you haven’t seen the video, you can search for it on YouTube. 

This article is based on a Power Line article posted yesterday which included research by journalists at the Weekly Standard and at the National Review Online.  The article deals with the testimony of Christopher Coates, the former head of the Department of Justice voting rights section.  The question at hand is whether Christopher Coates had expressed his concern about the unequal enforcement of voting rights to Civil Rights head Thomas Perez.  Mr. Coates said that his concerns about unequal enforcement were related to Perez at a briefing on May 13, 2010.  However, Mr. Perez testified under oath that hostility toward race neutral enforcement of civil rights laws was news to him.  

Power LIne reports:

“In addition, sources now tell The Weekly Standard that after 11 pm on September 23, the night before Coates was to testify before the Commission, the same individual, Jody Hunt, sent Coates a letter advising him again not to testify. Only 6 hours earlier Rep. Frank Wolf had sent [attorney general] Eric Holder a letter warning him that Coates was protected under federal whistleblower laws. Jen Rubin contacted the Justice Department for comment. Spokesman Tracy Schmaler’s only reply: “The letter speaks for itself.” She did not respond to a follow up question as to whether DOJ would take disciplinary action against Coates. Coates could not be reached for comment.”

The mainstream media has carried only limited (if any) coverage of this story.  That is a shame.  If we are going to keep our elected (and appointed) officials honest, we need to have an honest and well balanced media.  Right now we don’t have that.

I don’t mean to ruin anyone’s Saturday, but the Boston Herald has posted a list of the Massachusetts state payroll as of March 2010.  I don’t want to post details here, but if your blood pressure can handle it, you need to follow the link.  The posted salaries in many cases are quite reasonable, but the actual earnings appear to be out of control.  The state pensions are based on actual earnings, and those pensions are an unfunded liability.

Massachusetts is traditionally a one-party state.  The Democrat party has been in control of the state for a very long time.  It is time for a change.  The Republican candidates (and Tea Party candidates running as Republicans) this year are qualified and determined to clean up the political mess on Beacon Hill.  The Republican candidates who are running are experienced business people who are well qualified for the jobs they seek.  I am not suggesting that you blindly vote for anyone who is a Republican, but I am suggesting that you check out the qualifications of your local Republican candidates and see if you are willing to vote for change on Beacon Hill. 

Yesterday’s Washington Times posted an article about a breakthrough in stem cell research.  The breakthrough occurred at Children’s Hospital in Boston where a team of scientists led by Derrick J. Rossi published a paper Thursday showing that they can quickly and efficiently transform skin cells into cells with all the properties of embryonic stem cells.

I do not claim to be a scientist.  However, this seems to me to be a valid way to avoid creating and destroying embryonic stem cells in the name of research. 

The article states:

“”I think this is a stunning development,” said Dr. David Stevens, CEO of the Christian Medical and Dental Association. “People have been saying we have to use embryonic stem cells because we don’t have an alternative. Well, now we have an alternative.”

“The research comes at a critical juncture in the embryonic stem cell debate. A federal judge put a hold on such research in August after ruling that the Obama administration had likely violated the law by using federal funding for research that involved the destruction of human embryos.”

I would like to mention at this point that the ban has never been on embryonic stem cell research–the ban has always been on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  That is an important distinction–if embryonic stem cell research were all that successful, private funding would be readily available.  It will be interesting to see how the scientific community responds to this research. 

These two graphs are copied from Power Line Blog on September 30.  The conclusion is obvious.  As enrollment is remaining relatively stable, the cost of school employees is skyrocketing.  As the spending per student increases, test scores remain stagnant.  The United States Department of Education officially began operating in May of 1980.  Judging from the graphs below, it really does not look as if putting education in the hands of the federal government has been helpful.

On September 27, a website called Patdollard.com posted an article about President Obama’s faith-based office.  The article is based on an article written by Jim Towey for the Wall Street Journal on September 26.  The reason that the link to the Wall Street Journal is not posted here is that it is a subscriber only article. 

The article states:

“… on Tuesday President Obama and his director of faith-based initiatives convened exactly such a meeting to try to control political damage from the unpopular health-care law. “Get out there and spread the word,” Politico.com reported the president as saying on a conference call with leaders of faith-based and community groups. “I think all of you can be really important validators and trusted resources for friends and neighbors, to help explain what’s now available to them.””

Using the faith based office to push a political agenda is not appropriate.  This is another example of our “Chicago President” who politicizes everything.  The reason healthcare is not popular is that it is bad law that is going to cost tons of money and create a nightmare of bureaucratic regulations (and rationing).

The article at Pat Dollard’s website concludes:

“Mr. Obama is within his legal rights to engage our country’s spiritual leaders in his effort to sell health-care reform. But he should not use the White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to do so.

“If he cannot restore its focus to promoting successful programs that serve our country’s poor, then he should do the decent thing and close the faith-based initiatives office.

“Mr. Towey was director of the White House Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives for President George W. Bush from 2002-2006.”

Think before you vote in November.  We need people in Congress who are willing to stand up and stop this runaway train.

This picture is from the Fall River Herald News.  Marty Lamb is running for Congress in the Third Congressional District in Massachusetts against incumbent Jim McGovern on a platform that includes cutting the pork out of Washington. 

At about three o’clock eastern daylight savings time, Michael Yon posted the following on Facebook:

“There is more unembedded work to do and I am also prepping to go with U.S. forces in Urozgan. Have gotten many pings from British Army to go with Gurkhas. (Same Gurkhas I went to man-tracking school with in Brunei.) Have done some missions with Gurkhas in Afghanistan during a previous trip, but was not actually embedded with their unit. In light of the invitation, it’s hard to turn down the British Army, especially so considering the goodwill Gurkhas have always shown me. In that light, 5 minutes ago I accepted their offer. Am going with Gurkhas.”

As previously explained, Michael Yon is a former green beret who has embedded with troops in Afghanistan and Iraq since December 2004.  He is self-funded and writes very honestly about the things he sees.  He was unembedded from Afghanistan this year because of some friction with General McChrystal.  His relationship with General Petraeus is such that he is back there now.  I look forward to his reports regardless of where he is in the country or who his traveling companions are.  I consider him the best source on the war.  I will link to the next article on his website when it appears.