One of the reasons many of us get so disgusted with politicians is that sometimes they seem to be playing ‘gotcha’ games rather than doing their jobs.  The Hill posted an article yesterday that seems to fall into that category.  Under the current Senate rules, a bill can be blocked in the Senate if 41 Senators oppose it.  Three Democrat congressmen are attempting to change that.

The Hill reports:

“Three Democratic proponents of changing the Senate’s filibuster rules are vowing to press their case in the 112th Congress despite the GOP takeover of the House, with one senator pledging to force the issue on the very first day.

“Sens. Tom Harkin (Iowa), Mark Udall (Colo.) and Tom Udall (N.M.) all told The Hill this week they are not backing down from their effort. The Senate’s rules — which are based on tradition, not the Constitution– have frustrated Democrats for the past several years as GOP leaders have required a 60-vote majority even for procedural motions.”

This is interesting to me as it occurs just as the Republicans are gaining a few more seats in the Senate.  Frankly, I think the 60-vote requirement is good.  It keeps really bad legislation from being passed (except in the case of healthcare where the goalpost was moved)

The Hill also reports:

“”In the past year, we didn’t do a single appropriations bill. That’s our main job, to fund the government, and typically at least we do defense and intelligence appropriations. We didn’t even do those. And we didn’t do a budget. People are concerned about the deficit right now, well, if you don’t do a budget you can’t address the deficit. So there is a good case to be made for rules reform.””

I totally disagree with that statement.  The reason the budget did not get passed was that the Democrats running for office did not want to have to campaign on their votes.  Had a good budget been proposed, it would have been supported on both sides of the aisle and the filibuster would not have been an issue.  The problem in this Congress has not been the filibuster–it has been bad legislative proposals that were unpopular with the American people.  Had the Democrats had better ideas, they would have been able to pass legislation easily.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about the effect of Obamacare on the uninsured that the program was supposed to help.  According to the article, the figures are stark:

“375,000: The number of Americans with pre-existing conditions HHS said would apply for coverage in the first year of ObamaCare, one of the main political arguments for its implementation.

“8,011: The number that actually did.”

The article points out:

“That comes to a success rate for that prediction of just under 2.2%.  The Wall Street Journal points out that the program operates at a loss — which means that consumers who qualify for the program in essence have partial subsidies by entering it.  And yet, despite the billions of dollars committed to funding it and the efforts of 27 states to duplicate it, only eight thousand people have bothered to apply for the program.”

It really is time to REPEAL AND REPLACE!!!

Fox 40 News in Sacramento, California, is reporting on a 13-year-old boy at Denair Middle School who was asked to take an American flag off of his bicycle.  Cody Alicea says that he placed the flag on his bicycle to be patriotic and to honor veterans, like his own grandfather, Robert. He’s had the flag on his bike for two months but Monday, was told to take it down.

According to the article:

“Cody’s grandfather says the school was concerned about racial tensions or uprisings because of the flag. He feels if there was really a problem it should have been brought up two months ago, not during Veterans week.”

I am sorry if the school was worried about the flag stirring up racial tensions, but it seems to me that the school should protect a student’s right to fly the American flag.  If the school can’t guarantee the safety of a student (or the students) because someone is flying an American flag, maybe that school needs new officials.

In July The Atlantic published an article about the fact that the State of Texas seems to have avoided the economic recession that has hit the rest of the country.  The article points out that Texas came into the recession in good shape because in 2008 Texas was enjoying a strong economy based on an energy boom. 

According to the article:

“Real estate executives and economists struggled to find one reason why the Texas economy largely avoided the real estate boom and bust, but a few theories emerged. First, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro suggested that a reliance on property taxes in Texas (compared to California) might have dulled real estate appreciation. Second, the banks that survived the Savings and Loan crisis in the 1980s have mostly held onto conservative and un-exotic lending practices. Third, land and utilities are generally cheaper throughout Texas, which holds down the cost of the living. Fourth, besides Dallas, Texas’ major cities have diversified away from the kind of real estate and financial services addiction that plagued CaliFlAriVada (that’s CA, FL, AZ, NV), where the recession has been the most severe.”

The article also points out that the major cities in Texas have hosted stable industries.  That has generally resulted in consistent growth. 

The article concludes:

“Maybe it’s the lack of a state income or capital gains tax. Or the dearth of union workers. Or the plentiful labor supply on the border of Mexico, or the lower wages, or the stable and lean regulations. There’s something about Texas that makes it the most popular place for business to do its business, as CEO Magazine and CNBC both found the last year. As Brooke Rollins, president of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, told me: “Our research shows that the more tax incentives and less regulation you have, and the less likely businesses are to get sued, the more likely it is they’ll want to come and prosper in your state.””

I would like to add one other reason why Texas has not participated in the recession.  According to an American Medical News article in 2008, there was another factor.  In 2003 Texans approved a state constitutional amendment limiting noneconomic damages in medical liability cases to $250,000 for physicians.  Five years later, the cap is being credited for slashing liability insurance premiums, boosting the ranks of doctors in the state, and improving medical access to patients.  This is the kind of healthcare reform we need! 

The article at American Medical News points out:

“Texas physicians have witnessed a 25% overall drop in liability rates since 2003, the state insurance department says. For the first time, the state’s largest medical liability carrier, Texas Medical Liability Trust, saw a 50% reduction in lawsuit filings, this from 2003 to 2008. Texas went from four insurers to more than 30 during that period.

“According to the Texas Medical Board, medical license applications have soared from 2,561 to 4,041 — a 58% jump. At the same time, the number of neurosurgeons has climbed 12%, while the supply of orthopedic surgeons has risen 9%.

“The results seen in Texas, with lowered liability insurance premiums, are repeated in experiences from other states that have enacted caps of varying degrees. In February, the AMA released an analysis of independent research that showed caps on noneconomic damages are effective and have lowered premiums at least 17%, with some specialties seeing even greater drops.”

This is the answer to our nations so-called ‘healthcare crisis’–not more government control.  When the rest of the states realize that they can prosper instead of going broke, maybe they will take a look at what has happened in Texas and learn from it. 

This article is based on information from The Heritage Foundation, Investor’s Business Daily, and the Wall Street Journal regarding the preliminary report released by the deficit commission.

The Heritage Foundation views the report as a starting point for the debate.  Their comments included:

“Since it is a preliminary report from the chairs, it should be viewed as a model for discussion and seeding ideas for the final commission report. As such, the report tackles some of the key elements of the budget–cutting discretionary spending, cutting entitlement and other mandatory spending, and tax policy–and it suggests some small changes to the budgetary process. The co-chairs are to be commended for putting out a plan that addresses the fiscal issues confronting the nation.”

Investor’s.com asks the following:

“Though timid, some of the ideas floated by the co-chairmen of President Obama’s “deficit commission” are praiseworthy. But is this a bait-and-switch — to be followed by destructive new taxes?”

The Wall Street Journal posted an article by Aurthur Laffer.   His suggestions for solving the deficit problem are as follows:

1.  Extend the ‘Bush tax cuts’ forever and abolish the estate tax.

2.  Repeal Obamacare–Mr. Laffer notes that Obamacare allows individuals to pay only five cents for each dollar of health care.  He asks, “Who do you think pays the other 95 cents?”  (The American taxpayer?)

3.  The cancellation of all spending that punishes those who produce and rewards those who don’t.  This is the kind of thinking that has drained our treasury for years with no visible results.

4.  The enactment of stalled free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama.   The free trade agreement with Columbia has been blocked by unions. 

Mr. Laffer’s suggestions for the ideal growth agenda include such ideas as a true flat tax with two rates–one on personal income and one on net business sales, passing a balanced budget amendment that would not include raising taxes, price stability, and finally, as comedian Jackie Mason puts it, “putting the politicians on commission”.   Holding politicians responsible for the consequences of their actions.

I am sure we will hear much more about the deficit commission in the coming days.  The Political Calculations blog posted the following chart.  I think we have to deal with spending before we even talk about taxes.

Thank you to all American veterans.  Your sacrifices have kept us free.  We salute you and your families.

The American Thinker posted an article yesterday pointing out that Indonesia, praised by President Obama for its religious tolerance, does not allow Israeli citizens to visit there.  I am really sorry to hear this.  I know there are other Muslims countries that have similar restrictions, and I am really sorry that the freedom-loving countries of the world have not taken a strong stand against these countries.  Meanwhile, as he was praising an anti-Semitic country for its tolerance, President Obama was criticizing Israel for building in its own capital.  This is definitely a “beam me up, Scotty” moment.  It seems to me that until the west finds a way to support its energy needs independently of the Middle East, anti-Semitism will be accepted as the rule of the day.  That is unfortunate.

Ed Morrissey posted an article at Hot Air today about a Time Magaine article saying that if hyperinflation arrives, it will be the fault of the Tea Party.  Just as a frame of reference, the federal government has raised its expenses 38% during the past three years and raised the debt ceiling accordingly.  The article also fails to mention that the Federal Reserve, in an effort to keep interest rates low as the spending skyrocketed, has been printing money at an alarming rate.  So how in the world would inflation be the fault of the Tea Party (which at this point has very little actual power–a situation that will change in January) ? 

The problem here is not that the Tea Party will be to blame for inflation.  For Time Magazine the problem is that the Tea Party espouses smaller government–a horrible concept to the mainstream media.  The thing to remember as you read this sort of article is that the mainstream media is part of the status quo.  The Tea Party is a major part of the opposition to the status quo.  The major media would like nothing more than to discredit the Tea Party in the eyes of American voters so that we can continue down the spending road we are on.  Since every American would be affected by the economic unheaval that will occur if we do not cut spending, I really don’t understand why the media opposes the Tea Party.

The Hill is reporting today that the Chairmen’s Mark Report of President Obama’s fiscal commission has been released. 

According to the article:

“The report, approved by the panel’s co-chairmen, former Clinton Chief of Staff Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), proposes capping discretionary spending, instituting tax rate reductions while broadening the tax base, gradually raising the retirement age from 65 to 67 and reducing the rate of increase of Social Security benefits.

“The report is the “chairmen’s mark,” meaning that it is a draft that has not been approved by the 18 members of the president’s commission.”

The significant thing here is that the draft has not been approved by the 18 members of the president’s commission. 

According to the article, these are the five recommendations of the commission:

• Enact tough discretionary spending caps and provide $200 billion in domestic and defense savings by 2015.

• Pass tax reform that dramatically reduces rates, simplifies the code, broadens the base and reduces the deficit.

• Address the Medicare “doc fix” not through deficit spending but through savings from payment reforms, cost-sharing, malpractice reform and long-term measures to control healthcare cost growth.

• Achieve mandatory savings from farm subsidies and military and civil service retirement.

• Ensure Social Security solvency for the next 75 years while reducing poverty among seniors.

It will be interesting to see how the details of this report shape up.  Again, I want to go on the record against the idea of means-tested Social Security.  Paying into Social Security was never means tested–we were all forced to do it.  Are the federal pensions of Congress (who robbed Social Security after they opted out of it) means tested?  To means test Social Security is to penalize those of us who saved and reward those of us who did not.  It is another way the government encourages unproductive behavior.

Let’s see how many of the members of the commission sign on to the report.

The Washington Times reports today that Congressman John Boehner is not going to compromise on leaving the current tax rates in place.  The article in the Washington Times refers to the current rates as Bush tax cuts, which I think gives the impression that tax cuts ‘for the rich’ are coming.  That is simply not true.  The question is whether or not to leave the current tax rates in place.  The ‘Bush tax cuts’ will expire on January 1, and everyone’s taxes will go up–childcare deductions will drop, and tax rates in various income categories will rise.  To extend those tax cuts simply means that the tax rates will stay where they are.

One of the problems in our economy right now is uncertainty.  Small businesses have no idea what their tax rates or costs of healthcare will be next year.  They are reluctant to hire anyone until they have an idea of what their expenses will be.  Making the current tax rates permanent would solve that problem.  It would be better to further drop tax rates for everyone (google the ‘laffer curve’ and see what lower taxes does to revenue), but if Congress will not lower tax rates, it would be better to at least keep them where they currently are.

Yesterday Hot Air posted an article about the commonwealth of Pennsylvania seizing the newborn child of a mother who was guilty of eating an everything bagel before the hospital did a routine drug test.  Evidently Pennsylvania routinely does drug testing on expectant mothers during prenatal doctor’s visits and new mothers in the hospital.  The testing can probably be justified by saying that it gives the doctors a heads-up if they are going to be dealing with the baby of someone addicted to drugs or puts them on the alert if a mother may not be a competent mother.  The drug tests on this mother taken during her pregnancy had all been negative, but this was not taken into consideration after the hospital test.  If you are going to take a child away from a new mother, you had better be sure your drug test is reliable.  In this case it really wasn’t.

The article at Hot Air reports:

“The birth of a couple’s first child is supposed to be a joyous occasion — and for the first three days, it was for Elizabeth Mort and her partner Alex Rodriguez. But then the commonwealth of Pennsylvania took their young daughter away after the hospital where she was born reported the mother for testing positive on a drug test. Her drug of choice? An “everything” bagel from Dunkin’ Donuts…”

The article includes the video of the Mythbusters episode where the hosts of the show illustrate that poppy seeds will cause a positive read on a drug test.  I understand the desire of state authorities to protect children, but I believe they overstepped their bounds (and their common sense) in this case.

USA Today posted an article today stating that U.S. District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange issued a temporary restraining order Monday to block a new amendment to the Oklahoma Constitution that would prohibit state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.  Let’s see what this means.  The state courts cannot consider international law or Islamic law when deciding cases–they must base their decisions on the Constitution and on state law.  Why in the world is that a problem?

The Council on American-Islamic relations brought a lawsuit against the law.  According to the article:

“”My constitutional rights are being violated through the condemnation of my faith,” said Muneer Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations in Oklahoma. “Islam was the target of this amendment. This amendment does not have a secular purpose.””

The amendment most certainly does have a secular purpose–it is to make sure that court cases are settled on the basis of American law.  The measure, State Question 755, was approved with 70% of the vote–don’t the voters in Oklahoma have rights?

The article also points out:

“Among other things, Awad’s lawsuit alleges the measure transforms Oklahoma’s Constitution into “an enduring condemnation” of Islam by singling it out and barring courts from referring to Islamic law. It also alleges it violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against laws regarding the establishment of religion.”

Maybe I’m looking at this backwards, but it seems to me that the law prevents the establishment of religion as law.  The First Amendment prevents the government from establishing a government religion.  To allow Sharia Law to be used in court is to allow religious law to trump American laws.  That is is unconstitutional.  Hopefully this restraining order will be overturned.  I don’t want to live in a country where women can’t work, drive cars, or go out without a male relative with them.  I can’t imagine what this judge is thinking.  Her rights are at risk also.

The Hill reported yesterday that two Senators, Tom Carper (D-Del.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio), have written a letter to the chairmen of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform advocating for a 25-cent per gallon tax increase.  They want the increase to be implemented over a three-year period.  The Senators want 10 cents of the tax increase to go to deficit reduction and 15 cents to go to funding transportation infrastructure improvements. 

The letter was addressed to Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), co-chairmen of the fiscal commission, which is due to submit its recommendations to Obama by Dec. 1.

There is so much wrong with this suggestion I don’t know where to start.  The first thing to keep in mind is that Congress is not impacted by increases in the cost of gasoline–they do not directly pay for their gasoline–it comes out of a spending account (which I am sure they can increase if need be). This is another case of Congress discussing the passage of a law that will negatively impact all Americans except Congress.  It will also have a very negative impact on the economy.  I predicted $4 a gallon gasoline very soon without this tax, with this tax it will come much sooner.

I don’t envy the members of the fiscal commission that is supposed to make recommendations on the deficit.  Many of the members of the commission are people who believe higher taxes are the answer to everything–not lower spending.  They are about to meet the Tea Party. 

As most Americans are being forced to cut their budgets to make ends meet, it’s time for the government to do the same.  I don’t want to hear about cutting the programs that Congress knows will get the most reaction; I want to hear about cutting waste.  During the past two years as business has been losing jobs, government has been gaining them.  It’s time for that to change.  Just for the record–I am against a means test for Social Security.  No one means tested every American when the government took their money for Social Security.  No one means tested Congress as they stole the money from Social Security from 1965 on (after they opted out of the program).  It is time for change in Washington, and I hope the new Congress realizes that.

The election was last week, but the funny business continues.  According to a National Review article posted yesterday, someone is trying to impact the counting of absentee ballots in New Yorks 25th Congressional District.

National Review quotes the following:

“Statement From Ann Marie Buerkle On Absenteee Ballots

“Syracuse, NY –   “It has recently come to my attention that there are efforts underway in Upstate New York to contact individuals who cast absentee ballots in the 25th Congressional District and inquire how they may have voted in the recent election.  It is regrettable that this action is underway prior to those absentee votes being tabulated by county election officials.  While the reasons for this effort are unclear, many agree it could be an attempt by some to identify who each person voted for in an effort to disqualify certain eligible ballots from being counted.  I would like the public to know that my campaign is not connected to this current effort.  Further, no American – in Upstate New York or anywhere – is in anyway under obligation to provide information to anyone on how he or she voted in any election, including my own.””

“…The counting of the absentee ballots will be staggered over the next two weeks. Not surprisingly, the Maffei campaign has already filed legal proceedings against the four county boards of elections claiming voting irregularities. The objective is to delay and obstruct the process in order to disenfranchise voters who voted for Ann Marie.  

“We are currently trying to raise money for the anticipated recount.”

Have we reached a point where our elections results will be determined by lawyers and not voters?

On November 5, a website called MassResistance posted their analysis of why Republicans in Massachusetts lost at the polls last week.  The theory expressed is that the Republicans ran most of the campaigns in a way not to offend anyone. 

The article points out:

“In April 2009 the Boston homosexual newspaper Bay Windows featured a front-page interview with newly elected Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jennifer Nassour. She told Bay Windows that the Party will no longer oppose same-sex “marriage”, abortion, or other divisive “social issues.””

The article cites a quote from a past election:

“As columnist Jeff Jacoby once observed (regarding Mitt Romney’s 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy), if people are given the choice of a watered-down liberal and a real liberal, they will choose the real thing every time. What he might have added is that when the Republican Party caves in to more and more liberal mush, its rank and file starts to lose their zeal and enthusiasm, and it affects campaigns.”

I partially agree with the article, but I think there were exceptions to the watered-down profiles that were offered to the voters–the problem was that they were not at the top of the ballot, so people probably did not bother to split their vote to support them.

I don’t know if Massachusetts Republicans will learn from their mistakes or not.  Part of the problem is that many of the Massachusetts Republicans are not conservative and can’t be expected to take conservative stands.  I am not sure what it will take for that to change.

WLS AM in Chicago is reporting that even though Republican Mark Kirk has been elected to the United States Senate, he won’t be seated in time for the beginning of the lame duck session.  There were three Senators who were elected to fill vacant seats in the Senate.  They were expected to take their seats in time for the lame duck session which will begin on November 15.  Well, oddly enough the two Democrats that won will be taking their seats immediately, but Illinois can’t get the paperwork done on Mark Kirk to get him to the Senate before December.  This is the kind of shenanigans that angered the voters in the first place.  This is what those of us who live in Massachusetts watched with the election of Scott Brown.  Even though he won the election, the Democrats tried to keep him out of the Senate for as long as possible.  It would be nice if the Democrats would seat people when they are supposed to be seated instead of being sore losers and playing games with the electoral process.  This makes me wonder what mischief the Democrats have planned for Congress in the last two weeks of November.

One of the problems with the disclosure of the emails regarding climate change that were exposed this year is that they encouraged those of us who believe that global warming is faulty science to speak louder.  As I look outside at the snow on the ground today–snow on November 8–my skepticism is reinforced!  It is also reinforced by the fact that the emails showed that a significant period of global warming during the Middle Ages was left out of the data because it interfered with the desired conclusion.  Somehow, I just can’t picture the Lord of the Manor in the Middle Ages driving around in his SUV.  I don’t claim to be a scientist, but I suspect climate change is a basic part of the history of earth–before and after the industrial revolution.  Well, as the science of global warming becomes more suspect, those poised to make a lot of money because of global warming are having their hopes dashed.

Yesterday the National Review Online reported that the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on Oct. 21 that it will be ending carbon trading – the only purpose for which it was founded – this year.

According to the article:

“The CCX seemed to have a lock on success. Not only was a young Barack Obama a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX, but over the years it attracted such big name climate investors as Goldman Sachs and Al Gore’s Generation Investment Management.”

Many of our leading Congressmen have investments in CCX.  The article points out:

“CCX’s panicked original investors bailed out this spring, unloading the dog and its across-the-pond cousin, the European Climate Exchange (ECX), for $600 million to the New York Stock Exchange-traded Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) – an electronic futures and derivatives platform based in Atlanta and London. (Luckier than the CCX, the ECX continues to exist thanks to the mandatory carbon caps of the Kyoto Protocol.)

“The ECX may soon follow the CCX into oblivion, however – the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. No new international treaty is anywhere in sight.”

Does it bother anyone else that the people who will make millions from the implementation of carbon restrictions are the same people who are supporting the legislation?

Meanwhile, on Friday Breitbart.com reported:

“A top UN panel on Friday called for increased taxes on carbon emissions and international transport to raise 100 billion dollars a year to combat climate change.

“The group led by the prime ministers of Norway and Ethiopia also said there could be a tax on international financial transactions.”

It really is about the money–not the climate.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted an editorial about the decisions that now have to be made regarding Republican leadership in the Senate.  Yesterday I posted an article about the Republican Conference Chairman, which will be either Michele Bachmann or Jeb Hensarling.  Michelle Bachmann represents the Tea Party, which some Republicans do not wholly accept, and Jeb Hensarling represents more of the standard Republican mold.

Now John Boehner has to back someone as the new Republican chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.  The Washingon Examiner points out:

“It would be a horrible mistake to give the nod to either Rep. Jerry Lewis of California or Rep. Hal Rogers of Kentucky.  Lewis and Rogers are both Old Bull Republicans who love earmarks and pork barrel politics.  Apppointing either would split the House GOP caucus and spark a revolt among conservatives who have been fighting earmarks for years.  Most if not all of the freshman would join the revolt, with dire consequences for the GOP.  The next two Republicans in line are C.W. Young of Florida, another earmark-loving Old Bull who would be a disaster as chairman, and Frank Wolf of Virginia, whose undoubted experience and skills would be better utilized elsewhere, especially on homeland security issues.”

The battle here is totally understandable and was totally predictable.  The historic gains made in the House of Representatives by the Republicans were not the result of people loving Republicans–they were the result of people opposing the rapid increase in government spending.  The historic gains need to be followed by a new way of doing businesss in the House.  The Washington Examiner recommends Representative Jack Kingston of Georgia for head of the Appropriations Committee.  Representative Kingston has asked for earmark reform for years and has the experience to know how to run the committee well.  He would be a good choice, although he is not technically the next person in line for the position.

The Washington Examiner reminds us:

“To be sure, the federal budget won’t be balanced simply by banning earmarks.  But just as it is impossible to be a little bit pregnant, House Republicans cannot be against most earmarks but for some of them, which has been the position of Boehner and Kingston.”

These are the decisions that will determine the economic health of the country and also the election results of 2012.  Keep in mind that the campaigns for the House, the Senate, and the Presidency have already begun.

Today The Hill is reporting on the race for GOP Conference Chair as the Republicans prepare to take control of the House of Representatives.   Representatives Jeb Hensarling and Michele Bachmann are competing for the position. 

The problem here is one that is going to become increasingly more common in the immediate future.  Michele Bachmann is more closely associated with the Tea Party.  She has spoken out very publicly for the Tea Party.  She is the person who would be considered the “Tea Party” candidate.  Jeb Hensarling is someone who is ‘in line for the position.’  This is what always gets the Republicans in trouble.  This is the reason John McCain ran for President instead of Mitt Romney.

The question is very simple.  The energy in the Republican Party in this election came from the Tea Party.  Whether the old guard Republicans like it or not, that is a fact.  They have a choice.  They can acknowledge the heavy lifting done by the Tea Party or they can pretend that they took the majority because of their own popularity.  If they choose the second option, there will be a third party–it will be the Republican party.  The energy right now is with the Tea Party.  To ignore that fact is on a par with President Obama saying he lost the House of Representatives due to communications problems.  There were no communication problems–the American people saw exactly what he was doing and they didn’t like it.  If the Republicans in Congress choose to ignore the contributions of the Tea Party, they too run the risk of becoming irrelevant.

Today’s New York Post is reporting that Bertha Lewis, CEO of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), has sent out a statement that the group is filing for bankruptcy.  Ms. Lewis claims that a “right-wing media blitz” is responsible for ACORN’s troubles.  Wow.  Who knew there was such a thing as a right-wing media blitz?  I’m not even totally convinced that there is a right-wing media,

The article in the Post points out that the Congress that cut off the funding for ACORN was controlled by Democrats–not Republicans.  The Post also points out that the money was later restored to ACORN. 

According to the article:

“”[Over] the next week or so we should see a dozen or more organizations launched on the state level by staff who used to work for ACORN and leaders who developed their skills as ACORN members,” ACORN strategist Nathan Henderson-James wrote in February.”

“”These are not just simple name changes, but re-imaginings of how best to organize low and moderate income constitiuencies [sic] without any of the lelgal problems and funding issues dogging ACORN, not to mention the brand damage.””

May I have the honor of translating what has just happened.  The House of Representatives controls the spending bills.  The Republicans just took over the House of Representatives.  There goes the gravy train for ACORN.  ACORN doesn’t want to pay all the bills it ran up as ACORN, so they will declare bankruptcy and continue with a new name.  They can manage on a lower budget until the Democrats win control of the House of Representatives again (and they can help the Democrats win control by registering Mickey Mouse to vote in Orlando and the Dallas Cowboys starting lineup to vote in Las Vegas).

Every President has a library.  Jimmy Carter has one in Georgia; Bill Clinton has one in Arkansas.  It’s part of the whole presidential thing.  Presidential libraries also have historic value–sometimes events become clearer as time passes.  Well, some of the United Methodists are having serious problems with the fact that George W. Bush is planning a library at Southern Methodist University.

Front Page Magazine reports:

“I hope that a bullhorn will not become the symbol for the entry of the United States into an unjustified war and that a pistol of Saddam Hussein’s is not seen as some strange symbol of victory in that horrendous misjudgment,” harrumphed anti-Bush United Methodist theologian Tex Sample to The New York Times. “That these should be the symbols of the values and commitments of the Bush administration and should now become the face of Southern Methodist University is cause for alarm.”

I guess Mr. Sample has forgotten how devastated many of us felt after the events of September 11.  The people working at the World Trade Center site were digging in ruins where their friends and colleagues had been killed and in many cases buried alive.  The inspiration provided by the bullhorn in question was needed and appropriate.

The article further reports:

“”It’s the approach they’ve taken all along; it fits their worldview,” explained leading Bush library critic and SMU professor emeritus William K. McElvaney, who is an ordained United Methodist whom The New York Times also quoted.  “It’s a tragedy for SMU to hitch its star to this.”  Evidently McElvaney has promised there will be demonstrations at the library’s groundbreaking this month.  With the Rev. Sample and other left-leaning United Methodists, he unsuccessfully tried to persuade SMU’s board and the denomination’s bishops to halt the library. More temperate minds understood that whatever controversies surrounded the Bush years, the library’s archives would be a boon to SMU scholarship.  George W. Bush, who’s wife Laura attended SMU and sits on SMU’s board, is himself a United Methodist.  The pastor of his Dallas church also sits on the SMU board and has outspokenly defended the library.”

Good grief.  What a sad commentary on the politicization of everything in some circles in America that a presidential library cannot be built without someone getting their dander up.  I am sorry that those opposing this library are so against the military.  Have they not figured out yet that the military is what defends their right to practice their religion?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reported yesterday that President Obama, moving toward the political center after the recent election, has expressed an interest in expanding drilling for natural gas.  He has also implicitly backed a process called hydraulic fracturing to access large deposits in Pennsylvania and Texas, among other places.  Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, a drilling industry group formed to fight off federal regulation of shale gas drilling, stated that he was surprised by the change of direction.

Mr. Morrissey comments:

“Yes, well, don’t be terribly surprised.  The key to this change in direction is in that last paragraph — Pennsylvania.  Democrats just lost control of that state on Tuesday, along with Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida.  There’s a term for a Democratic presidential nominee who loses Pennsylvania and doesn’t get the other three states in return: loser.”

Mr. Morrissey also reports:

“Coal producers expressed disappointment that Obama failed to mention their industries in his remarks, but that may not be long in coming, either.   Joe Manchin nearly lost an election he should have won by 30 points in large measure because of Obama’s war on coal. Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana have fingers in the coal industry; Wisconsin doesn’t produce coal, but they use a lot of it, and so does Michigan.  If Obama wants to reconnect to voters in states he has to win in 2012, expect at least a temporary truce in the coal war, too.”

It would be truly ironic if the political necessity that caused this change of direction wound up reviving the economy.  However, the thing to be aware of here is that President Obama’s apparent change in offshore drilling policy in last spring (see rightwinggranny.com) was not what it appeared to be.  It will be interesting to see if the President follows through on this ‘interest’ in drilling for natural gas or only keeps the issue alive long enough to win him the votes he needs.

Yesterday Boston.com reported:

“Federal officials have arrested dozens of alleged illegal immigrants connected to a flight school in Stow, including the school’s owner and students who received US government clearance to train as pilots despite strict security controls put into place after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.”

It is a good thing that the illegal immigrants were arrested; however, according to the article:

“All the arrested immigrants, who were learning to fly small single-engine planes, are free pending deportation hearings in federal immigration court, immigration officials said.”

This is amazing.  How many of these arrested immigrants do you think will show up for their pending deportation hearings in federal immigration court?

One of the people arrested was the owner of the school, Thiago DeJesus, a 26-year-old Brazilian immigrant who holds a license to fly single-engine airplanes.  Mr. DeJesus was charged in July with being in the United States illegally.  He is not only still here–he has gone into business!  Now just for the record (and with no idea what Mr. De Jesus’s political or terrorism tendencies are), this is obviously an entrepreneurial young man.  He is the person we need in this country right now.  What is wrong with our immigration system that he is not allowed to be here legally?

Meanwhile, Mr. DeJesus was continuing to give flying lessons this week??!!! 

According to the article:

“FAA spokeswoman Laura J. Brown confirmed that DeJesus is a licensed pilot and flight instructor but would not comment on the fact that his school is still open because the agency is investigating what she called safety issues in connection with the school. She declined to elaborate.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire story.  It gets more unbelievable as you read it.

On November 3rd, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about the Republicans already requesting that the Obama Administration not shred documents as they prepare for the transition to a Republican House of Representatives.  Yesterday, Power Line posted an article commenting on the coming investigations.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line comments that, “In my opinion, the public elected a Republican Congress for the purpose of repealing Democratic legislative excesses, preventing new overreaching legislation, and bringing spending under control. It did not elect a Republican Congress to persecute the executive branch.”

Mr. Mirengoff lists the investigations he believes are important to the political health of the country:

The handling of the New Black Panthers voting intimidation case–the Justice Department needs to understand that Congress will not tolerate a double standard of enforcement in Civil Rights Laws.

The appointment of approximately 32 ‘czars’–the President has placed people in top positions in his administration without the benefit of Senate confirmation.  The confirmation process is there for a reason, President Obama should respect it.

The firing of Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service.  This is a little more significant than an ordinary firing.

The article explains:

“At first glance, the removal of, Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service, may seem insufficiently consequential to justify a backward looking investigation. However, as Stanley Kurtz points out in Radical-in-Chief, Obama included $1.4 billion in the 2011 budget to create a force of government-funded community organizers. His aim is to boost his political program while creating an army of young adherents in the process. The firing of Walpin appears to have an attempt to clear the way for this form of abuse. In this context, it is worthy of investigation by the House.”

We don’t need a witch hunt.  However, we do need an honest investigation and oversight into those things that have been done by Congress and the Obama Administration that were not Constitutional.

Today the Washington Examiner is reporting on the latest unintended consequence of Obamacare.  The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) was one of the strongest supporters of the healthcare reform bill.  They spent millions of dollars to promote the bill.  They were part of the group of supporters of the bill that repeatedly stated, “health insurance costs will not go up if Obamacare is passed and that people who like their current coverage would be able to keep that coverage.”  Well, that was then; this is now.

According to the article at the Washington Examiner:

“Now along comes AARP announcing an eight to thirteen percent hike in its health insurance policy premiums charged to more than 4,500 employees, retirees and dependents.  And that’s likely only the first of more such increases to come.  There are also “adjustments” coming in the AARP plan’s required co-payments and deductibles.”

The bottom line here is that all of us were lied to about Obamacare.  Some of the liars knew they were lying, some did not.  At any rate, now that the truth is rapidly becoming apparent, the only honorable thing to do is for Congress (and the President) to apologize to the American people for their lying and repeal the bill.  I am sure that will happen right after pigs fly.