Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is the president of the Center for Security Policy.  He posted an article at the group’s website, Center For Security Policy, today about the START Treaty. 

Mr. Gaffney points out:

“The treaty would leave the Russians with thousands more nuclear weapons than the United States when their ten-to-one advantage in “tactical” arms is factored in.  Moreover, the Kremlin’s tactical weapons are mostly modern. Ours are, on average, over thirty-years old; some actually rely on vacuum tubes.  Theirs are deployed forward near our allies and, in some cases, are being moved still closer in order to intimidate America’s friends. Meanwhile, our tactical bombs, artillery shells, etc. are no longer deployed aboard Navy ships and many of them are kept in the United States, and therefore are of limited, if any, deterrent value.” 

The recent behavior of the Russians should not convince us that they are partners for peace.  Mr. Gaffney further explains:

“New START will allow the Russians to have a say – and what amounts to a veto – over America’s defenses against missile attack.   The Russians have said they will withdraw from the treaty if we improve the quantity or quality of our very limited anti-missile capabilities.  That threat will be more than enough to dissuade an Obama administration that has already cut, slowed and refused to deploy U.S. anti-missile programs. 

“Such an arrangement is especially crazy since other dangerous countries that are not parties to New START are building up their ability to attack us and our allies with ballistic missiles (see above).  For example, Iran will soon have a base for such missiles in Venezuela – a new “Cuban Missile Crisis” in the making.  Why should Moscow be able to decide whether we can protect the American people from those missiles?”

This is a treaty negotiated by a President who does not understand that a strong United States is an asset to peace.  When the neighborhood policeman is armed to the teeth, the crime rate in the neighborhood goes down.

Hopefully enough Senators will realize that the treaty as it currently stands is not a good deal for the United States and should not be approved.  This is a lame-duck Congress.  It needs to go home! 

Arutz Sheva posted an article earlier this month about some comments made by Professor Yisrael Aumann, Nobel Laureate and noted American-Israeli mathematician and game theorist.  The professor was speaking at Bar Ilan University.

The article explains:

“Aumann is also known for his view that the principles of game theory can be successfully applied to the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.”

The article also provided a link to an explanation of his theories written for the layman here.

The article briefly explains his theory:

“”We think that posters with pigeons will bring about peace, but that isn’t true and will only bring about war,” added Aumann and cited the example of British Prime Minister Chamberlain, who handed over Czechoslovakia to Hitler in exchange for a guarantee that this would be the Nazi leader’s final demand. “Hitler did not want to start a war, but Chamberlain brought him into the war by chasing peace,” said Aumann decisively.

“In terms of the current situation between Israel and the PA, Aumann said that gestures towards the Arabs, such as the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, will ultimately bring about war and prove that applying pressure on Israel leads it to fold. “We are sending a signal of weakness to the other side and telling them that if they pressure they will get what they want. This is wrong.””

It is sad that we have to prepare for war in order to make peace, but sometimes strength is the only deterrent to war.  I shudder to think where Israel would be as a nation if the Arab nations around it did not suspect that Israel has nuclear weapons.  I shudder to think what will happen in the Middle East if Iran is successful in its nuclear program.  We need to pray for peace, but prepare for war.

On December 15th Investors.com posted an editorial about some of the decisions of the Eric Holder Justice Department.  There are definitely some things that need to be looked at.

The Justice Department has sued an Illinois school department for rejecting a Muslim teacher’s request to take a three-week leave of absence to travel to Mecca.

According to the article:

“The suit claims that the Berkeley School District discriminated against middle-school instructor Safoorah Khan, whose religion “required” her to perform the hajj, and is seeking damages for this so-called victim.”

Doesn’t the school district have the right to deny a teacher a three-week leave of absence? 

The article further reports:

“Attorney General Eric Holder is fulfilling a promise to pander to the special interests of Muslims. In June 2009, he pledged “a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim community” that includes “robust enforcement” of “religious freedoms.”

“”We are committed to using criminal and civil rights laws to protect Muslim Americans” in the workplace, housing market and schools, he said, adding that he was making it “a top priority.”

“Earlier this month, Holder spoke in San Francisco at the annual dinner of an anti-FBI group called the Muslim Advocates, whom he described as “partners in our work to promote tolerance.””

I am not in favor of discrimination against anyone, but there is a difference between discrimination and special privileges.  ‘Tolerance’ should not be an excuse for enforcing laws differently for different people. 

The editorial lists the groups that Attorney General Holder has spoken to over the past two years.  This is not an Attorney General who represents the majority of Americans or who represents all Americans equally.  I don’t expect him to be replaced as long as President Obama is in the White House, but I will be voting for a Republican President (regardless of who it is) in order to end Mr. Holder’s term as Attorney General.  He has created a level of partisanship in the Justice Department that simply does not belong there.  The handling of the Black Panters Voting Intimidation Case and the suit against the Arizona immigration law were simply inexcusable.

If you read this site for the news and news links, you might want to skip this story.  It is rather personal, and it is simply an observation that I think applies to the Christmas season.

I am not always the smartest person in the room, and on some occasions, I am probably the dumbest (as any of us is capable of being).  The following story is true, and it is not one of my shining moments, but there is something to be learned from it.

I love Christmas, and I love Christmas earrings.  Last year I found a pair of Christmas earrings that said “Ho, Ho, Ho.”  I was thrilled and couldn’t wait to wear them.  First chance I had, I put them on.  I was going out with my husband that night and went to do a final check in the mirror.  To my shock and disappointment, the earrings said “Oh, Oh, Oh.”  I figured that because they had words on them, they must be like shoes–there was a left and right one.  So I switched them and looked in the mirror again.  They still said, “Oh, Oh, Oh.”  Then the light dawned.  A mirror is a reflection–not a true picture.

Now there is a point to this silly story (which really is true).  Every day we look into the mirror to comb our hair, put on make-up, shave, etc.  We really don’t think about the fact that we are looking at a reflection–we are not looking at actual reality.  Most of the time that doesn’t matter–sometimes it does.  We aren’t even aware of the fact that our perspective is not real.

It’s Christmas.  We are in a world of malls decorated with beautiful colored ornaments and beautifully decorated trees.  Everyone is buying gifts.  The perspective on television is all the things we absolutely have to do or have to make Christmas perfect.   Where is your perspective?  Is it a reflection of the mall, the television and the shopping or is it a reflection of the reason for the season?  We give gifts because God gave us the greatest gift of all.  Are you celebrating Jesus’ birthday or are you celebrating something that you see around you?  Are you seeing “Oh, Oh, Oh, or have you reached the point where in faith you know the earrings do actually say “Ho, Ho, Ho” regardless of what you are seeing?

Merry Christmas!

One of the aspects of the recently passed Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 is its attack on bake sales and pizza parties in schools.  In an article posted yesterday in the Washington Times by Gabriella Hoffman, Ms. Hoffman points out that Michelle Obama has a law degree–not a degree in nutrition. 

In the article Ms. Hoffman tells parents that they have to step up and take an active role in what their children eat:

“It is imperative that parents reassert their authority over their children’s eating habits. When parents educate their kids about what they should and should not eat, there wouldn’t be a need for the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010. Parents are supposed to teach their kids how to eat healthy and stay in shape. They show them what kinds of food to eat and how to manage their portion sizes. They show their kids that a healthy lifestyle is incomplete unless they exercise. When parents neglect their duties, the government swoops in and replaces them–as evidenced by this bill. As a result, parents must set the precedence for healthy eating and exercise habits so the First Lady doesn’t have to.”

There is a webiste, My food. My choice!, which has been set up to oppose this bill.  The article reports:

“Since the First Lady waged war against bake sales and the like, My Food. My Choice! has vouched for an annual celebration of “National Bake Sale Month” each December. In order to promote free choice while exposing the absurdity of this law, group members intend to celebrate this occasion to show the importance of bake sales for schools under great economic duress.”

It’s time for parents to reassert their rights.

Remember the days when doing a good deed was a good thing?  Unfortunately, in some places that is only a memory.

On Friday, CBS News in Baltimore reported on two men who rescued a deer that had fallen into the Patapsco River on Thursday night. 

The article reports:

“We seen the deer going under,” said Khalil Abusakran. “It couldn’t maintain.  It was starting to freeze, and it was really getting bad.”

The two men got a raft and rescued the deer.  After the rescue was complete, a natural resources police officer on the scene (who had watched the entire rescue) wrote both men a ticket. 

The article further states:

“The ticket itself doesn’t check off any specific violation, just a $90 fine.”

The men were told that the ticket was for not wearing life vests, although both are above the age where that is a requirement.

This is just wrong.  The way it should have happened is that the national resources police officer should have helped with the rescue and after he was off duty, they all went out for a beer.  That would have made much more sense.

The $ 1.1 tillion omnibus bill was defeated last week, and in its place Congress passed a Continuing Resolution that will fund the government through Tuesday.  The problem here is very simple–the current Congress wants to fund the government through 2011, thus totally negating the election that took place last month.  It’s very simple–the current Congress does not want to relinquish power and go home!

Today’s Wall Street Journal describes the discussion as follows:

“The president is pushing Congress for a yearlong resolution funding the government at current levels. That would put off the looming battle with resurgent Republicans to fund health care, but could also set back implementation of the program.

“But Republicans want a short-term funding bill so they can start the fight with the White House over government spending sooner rather than later.”

An article in The Hill yesterday reports:

“A short-term bill that runs through February or March, whatever is agreed to in the Senate, leaves House Democrats with just about no choice but to vote for a bill that will give Republicans control over the CR’s spending levels in the 112th Congress. 

“”Members understand we are at the mercy of Senate Republicans,” a Democratic leadership aide told The Hill tonight. 

“House Republicans are aiming to cut back spending to fiscal 2008 levels.” 

Note to current Congress:  Elections have consequences.  Go home.  Have a Merry Christmas.

KOKO.Com in Oklahoma City reported this week on a bank that was being checked by the Federal Reserve to make sure it was meeting their requirments.  Unfortunately, the interpretation of the requirements stepped over the line.

According to the article:

“The examiners came to Perkins last week. And the team from Kansas City deemed a Bible verse of the day, crosses on the teller’s counter and buttons that say “Merry Christmas, God With Us.” were inappropriate. The Bible verse of the day on the bank’s Internet site also had to be taken down.”

The examiners believed that the symbols and Bible verse were in violation of Regulation B, “…the use of words, symbols, models and other forms of communication … express, imply or suggest a discriminatory preference or policy of exclusion.”

Good grief!  Have we become so paranoid about believing in anything that this is what the bank examiners were focused on?  If you believe in diversity, you allow different expressions of belief–even if they are not the same as yours.  Would a teller be allowed to wear a headscarf to comply with her religion or would that be seen as discriminatory? 

It is the Christmas season.  Christmas has been celebrated in America since before we were America.  Christianity is the dominant religion of the country.  That is simply a fact.  Placing a Bible verse on the website was a choice of the bank.  If people are offended by that, they can bank elsewhere.  It seems to me that based on what has happened in banking over the past two years, the examiners have more to worry about than Bible verses or Christian symbols.

Power Line posted an article yesterday explaining why the START Treaty should not be passed during the lame-duck Congress. 

The article points out:

“Matthew Spalding and Anna Leutheuser review the record since the passage in 1933 of the Twentieth Amendment limiting lame duck sessions. Spalding and Leutheuser write: “The State Department maintains a comprehensive listing of all agreements and treaties currently in force. While considerable research would be required to establish definitively that no treaty has ever been ratified by a lame duck session, it is of note that current research efforts have yet to find any such treaty.”

“Spalding and Leutheuser therefore conclude: “The ratification of New START by a lame duck Senate would not only ignore the message sent by voters in November but also break a significant precedent, consistent with the principle of consent, maintained by Presidents and Congresses since the passage of the Twentieth Amendment in 1933.”

“In short, what Obama et al. are doing is wrong. It is akin to the procedural shenanigans in which they engaged to ram Obamacare through the Senate after the election of Scott Brown earlier this year. Someone really ought to call them on it.

Aside from the obvious question of whether or not this Congress should ratify this treaty rather than leave it for the newly elected Congress, there is the issue of the treaty itself.  Andrew McCarthy posted an articel at National Review Online yesterday detailing the problems with the treaty. 

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

“Russia’s strategic nukes will be reduced even if we do nothing, because Russia cannot keep up economically; the cap of 1,550 weapons works only against us. The impediment to modernization of our nuclear arsenal is not Russia; it is President Obama. He is demanding the bad New START agreement as his price for a modernization commitment that cannot be enforced. That’s a net security loss. Better to elect a new president in two years for whom national defense is a priority.”

I hope this Congress runs out of time before they get to approve this treaty.  I will be an impediment to peace–not a help.

The compromise worked out to maintain the current tax rates is a very mixed bag.  It is the product of compromise and thus will not make anyone totally happy.  Many Republicans who voted for it said that they did not like it, but were unwilling to risk the severe economic downturn that raising tax rates would have caused.  Many Democrats made the same statement.  The bill passed because it was probably less damaging than not passing it.

Meanwhile, in the middle of the tax bill debate, the omnibus spending bill was announced.  This $1.1 trillion piece of pork would have funded earmarks that were years old, funded the federal budget through 2011, and made sure Obamacare was properly funded during the coming year.  The omnibus spending bill would have successfully tied the hands of the incoming Congress in the area of cutting spending or defunding Obamacare.

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article on what actually went on behind the scenes in the defeat of the omnibus spending bill.  It is a very interesting article, and I strongly suggest that you follow the link and read the entire article.

The article points out:

“[It was] 100 percent grassroots … The American people took it down,” said John Hart, spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn,

Oklahoma Republican.Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , agreed, though with a far less triumphant tone.

 

“Today’s maneuvers demonstrate that the House and Senate Republican leadership from here on out should be considered a wholly owned subsidiary of the Tea Party,” Manley said.

 

I guess it’s all a matter of perspective.

Every ten years, the states redraw their Congressional districts according to the results of the national census.  Every state has its own process for the redistricting.  Some states create districts according to the political goals of whichever party is currently in power, and some states make an honest effort to redistrict in a non-partisan way.  In an effort to set up a fair process, Arizona created an Independent Redistricting Commission.  Unfortunately, that effort has not been totally successful.  The Verde Independent reported on December 14th that an applicant for the Commission may have been disqualified for religious reasons. 

According to the article:

“House Speaker Kirk Adams, R-Mesa, said Monday the only comment made last week about the nomination of Tucsonan Christopher Gleason to the commission was by one screening panel member who pointed to Gleason’s involvement with a Christian organization. That panelist, Louis Araneta, an attorney and former judge, questioned whether Gleason could separate issues of church and state.

The article stated the basis of the comment:

“Gleason said his civic activities include involvement 4-Tucson, part of Vision 360 for Tucson. He said the goal of the organization is “to serve as a catalyst to engage the Christian Community in the needs and dreams of Tucson to bring about spiritual renewal and prosperity to the glory of God’ to make Tucson one of the most liveable cities in the world.

“Gleason said those words came directly from the organization’s mission statement.”

Since this information about the screening panel became public, the commission has denied that Mr. Gleason was turned down for the board due to his religion. 

Mr. Gleason commented on the decision:

“”If this is what the (screening) commission is doing on a non-judicial appointment, what are they doing with judicial appointments?’ Gleason asked. “Is there some sort of a non-religious litmus test, or non-faith litmus test for judicial appointments?'”

Religious discrimination is illegal.  I hope that if Mr. Cleason’s involvement in a Christian organization is the reason he was disqualified from the Redistricting Commission that the person (or people) on the screening committee who was guilty of religious discrimination will be taken off the committee.

Please follow the link to this video at YouTube.  The purpose of the video is raise awareness of bullying among young children.  I am shamelessly promoting it because two of my granddaughters are in it.  It is a good cause, and I am glad to see Here II Here (the music group involved) producing the video.  I wish them much success not only with their music, but also with the cause they are promoting.

This article is based on two articles–one Associated Press story posted at Yahoo News and one posted at the Attleboro Massachusetts Sun Chronicle on Wednesday.

The article at Yahoo News reports that at least nineteen states have cut back on their funding of a program that provides free medicine to people with HIV. 

The article quotes an HIV patient:

“”It’s very frustrating to be stuck in this position at this age and not feel well and be wondering if I am going to die any differently than the people who I helped die in the ’80s,” said Stephen Farrar, 55, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., who has HIV and is going on Florida’s waiting list. “Am I going to be one of those people?””

Meanwhile in Massachusetts, the state is looking to cut back the state’s healthcare program in order to cut the state budget deficit.  The article explains:

“”Obviously something has to be done,” state Sen. James Timilty, D-Walpole, said. Timilty said the original hope with universal coverage was that by giving everyone health insurance people lacking coverage would stop unnecessary trips to hospital emergency rooms and use less expensive doctor’s visits for their care.

“The savings, however, have not materialized, he said.”

Remember the quote from Margaret Thatcher–

“The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.” (Margaret Thatcher)

Mrs. Thatcher knew what she was talking about.  It is becoming obvious that the government cannot meet its financial obligations to care for HIV patients or to provide health care for everyone.  The thing that we need to remember here is that left to its own resources, the private sector might be able to meet these needs.  There are many programs established by private pharmaceutical companies to provide drugs at discounted rates to people who cannot afford them.  If private companies are allowed to pursue research and reap the benefits of their labor, they can afford to be charitable.  However, we need to remember that charity is a voluntary thing–not something to be legislated. 

If we are to see one of the best medical systems in the world continue to be one of the best medical systems in the world, we need to remove the government from the equation.  Ultimately, that will be the only answer that will result in the best care for everyone.

Haaretz.com reported yesterday on a statement made by Gaza leader Ismail Haniyeh at a rally to mark the 23rd anniversary of the founding of Hamas

According to the article, this was the statement:

“”We say it with confidence as we said it five years ago when we formed our government, and we say it today: We will never recognize Israel,” Haniyeh told a crowd in Gaza City numbering tens of thousands.”

How would America have reacted if Mexico had refused to recognize the existence of Texas? 

The article further reports:

“”This year the rally is different from previous rallies. We want to send a message to the world and to the Zionist enemy that Hamas movement is a powerful Islamic Palestinian movement which can never be uprooted,” a rally organizer, who gave his name as Abu Hamza, said.”

There is no answer to peace in the Middle East as long as the supporters of a Palestinian state refuse to recognize the right of Israel to exist.  I am not opposed to a Palestinian state (although that was the purpose of establishing what was originally known as Trans-Jordan), but I am not willing to see the establishment of a state that not only harbors terrorists, but is dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

My reaction to the statements made at this rally is to arm Israel to the teeth to make sure she can defend herself when necessary and to make sure Israel has the weaponry to be proactive in protecting her security.  Hamas is like a next-door neighbor who attempts to rob your house any time you go out!

Yesterday, Newsbusters posted an article about a recent poll the Washington Post took, but failed to report in its newspaper. 

Newsbusters reports:

“A new ABC-Washingtoon Post poll found ObamaCare sunk to its lowest popularity yet: 52 percent opposed, and only 43 percent in favor.  ABC mentioned the poll without fanfare at the end of a Jake Tapper report on Monday’s World News, and Tapper added this was the health law’s “lowest level of popularity ever.”  But Tuesday’s Washington Post reported not one sentence on the poll in the paper–even as they reported in the paper that the same survey found Obama’s tax-and-umemployment-compensation deal has “broad bipartisan support.””

One of the foundations of a democracy is an unbiased media.  It is unfortunate that the current media does not take their job seriously enough to attempt to be unbiased in their reporting.

This article is based on two sources, CNS News and Heritage.org.  It is an understatement to say that I am furious at the proposed $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill.  Last Christmas Congress voted on a very unpopular healthcare reform bill based on the theory that the voters would forget about the vote by November.  The voters didn’t forget, and the voters sent many of the Congressmen who voted for the healthcare reform bill packing.  Well, they evidently did not learn from their mistake–now they want to pass this pork-laden spending bill in a lame-duck session.  Please remember that Congress had the option of passing a continuing resolution to fund the government at current levels–there was no reason to introduce this spending bill instead.  Also keep in mind that this bill could not have been written overnight–it had to be in the works for some time.  Maybe that’s why the Democrats were not concerned about not having passed a budget resolution–they had this up their sleeve.

The Heritage Foundation points out:

“But as bad as the earmarks are the spending increases are even worse. The bill adds $5.4 billion in new labor, education, and health spending including money for the failed Head Start program, the failed Race to the Top program, Pell Grants, and $1.25 billion in spending on Obamacare. No conservative who promised to repeal Obamacare can possibly support this bill.”

The article at CNS News reports the comments of Senator John McCain:

“McCain said if Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid insisting to moving ahead with “this monstrosity,” Republicans would ensu Americans are made aware of what it contains.

“”I’ll be joined by many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle to ensure that every single word of this bill is read aloud here on the Senate floor.”

“He urged Democrats to “rethink their strategy” – to drop the spending bill designed to fund the government through 2011 in favor of a continuing resolution that will keep the government operating for 45 days, enabling the next Congress to take up the matter in the new year.”

I am not a fan of John McCain, but he is absolutely right on this.

Please take note of any Congressman who supports this bill.  He needs to be voted out of office as soon as he comes up for re-election.  This is what the election in November was about.  Obviously, we will have to restate the same principles in 2012.  Let’s do it!

The Hill is reporting that today the Democrats in the Senate introduced a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill that would fund the government through fiscal year 2011, according to Senate GOP sources.   That is truly amazing.  First of all it is amazing that they would introduce an omnibus spending bill in a lame-duck session with days remaining rather than a continuing resolution.

There will be an article in tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal commenting on the fact that the lame-duck session is asking for votes on both the START Treaty and the omnibus spending bill.  The Journal reports:

“The last-minute omnibus should also offend Senators who claim to have heard the voters on November 2. This jam-job is a substitute for the 12 individual spending bills that Congress was supposed to have passed during the summer. But for the first time in modern memory, Democrats never got around to passing a budget outline, much less specific spending bills. So now they want to rush one giant bill into law when no one is paying attention.

“Congress does have to fund the government, but it can do that with a simple continuing resolution that maintains the status quo for three months or so until the next Congress gets up and running. The catch is that this would mean no earmarks, and no riders for this or that special interest that Members on the Appropriations Committee can write into a formal spending bill. This includes 10 or so GOP Appropriators, some of whom are leaving the Senate and want a last hurrah. Their fellow Senators deserve the chance to offer amendments on the floor at the very least, assuming their staff members get the time to read 2,000 pages.”

Last year the Democrats managed to push the healthcare bill through the House of Representatives on Christmas Eve when they thought no one was looking.  This year they are trying to push a pork-laden spending bill through the Senate in the hope that no one is looking.  Well, the American public is looking.  This is just nasty.  I would rather see the government have to shut down than to see this bill pass!

CBS News New York reported yesterday that New York Jets trainer Sal Alosi has been suspended without pay for the remainder of the season and fined an additional $25,000 for tripping Miami Dolphins cornerback Nolan Carroll on the sidelines during Sunday’s game.

I like football, and I am a Jets fan, but there is no excuse for this kind of behavior.  Mr. Alosi has apologized, but there is still no excuse.  It’s a game.  Just because it is a game, you do not have license to act like a petulant five-year old.  I realize that there have been other incidents of this type in the past, but I hope that suspending Mr. Alosi and fining him will put an end to this sort of behavior in the entire league.  It simply does not belong in the sport.

The American Thinker is reporting today that Japan has cut its corporate tax rate from 40 percent to 35 percent in order to spur economic growth.  According to the article:

“The DPJ-led government had already unveiled a “new growth strategy” under which it pledged to lower the 40 per cent effective corporation tax rate to a level closer to that of competitor nations – put at 25-30 per cent – during the next decade.”

Dogs are more obedient than cats–I don’t think anyone would argue with that–but cat’s are smarter!  Today’s UK Mail Online posted a story about a five-year old cat named Pepper who saved his owners home from being destroyed by a fire. 

Pepper sounds like a really neat cat.  Pepper has learned to open a window in the kitchen of his house to let himself out at night.  A fire broke out in his owners home while his owners were Christmas shopping.  Pepper simply opened the window and let himself out.  The smoke escaping from the opened window alerted the neighbors to the fact that there was a problem.  The fire department was called, the owners were called and told what was happening and Pepper and his owners still have a place to live.  Because the fire department was called, the damaged was limited to smoke damage mainly in the kitchen.

I hope Pepper has a really great Christmas.

CNS News reported today on the Presidential signing of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.  Just for the record, I fully approve of healthy, hunger-free kids–it’s the law part I don’t like.

The article reports:

“First Lady Michelle Obama said of deciding what American children should eat: “We can’t just leave it up to the parents.”” 

I must be incredibly old-fashioned, but I think you can leave it up to the parents.  If there is a problem with that, you might consider better educating the parents about nutrition.

The article explains:

“The law gives the federal government for the first time the authority to regulate the food sold at local schools, including in vending machines.”

I understand that the generation growing up is overweight, but are we addressing the actual problem or is this just another federal power grab?  Would it make more sense for American consumers to begin reading the labels on the food they buy?  Would it make more sense to tell mothers to buy whole grain bread for their children?  Would it make more sense for the elementary schools who have eliminated recess to reinstate it?  Would it make more sense for the schools that are currently charging fees for students to participate in athletic programs to drop those fees so that more children can participate?  What is the gym class requirement in our high schools?  Does it involve sweat?  Can high schools put in an hour of exercise two or three times a week?

As you can see, there are many other ways to address the problem of obesity in our children.  I don’t think a power grab is the right answer.

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson has ruled on the consitutionality of the Obama Healthcare Law.

According to the Journal:

“In a 42-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson said the law’s requirement that most Americans carry insurance or pay a penalty “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power.””

The question at hand is whether the government can force you to buy health insurance.  There have been two prior lower court rulings that upheld that right; this judge said it was not legal.  Obviously, this matter will be going to the Supreme Court.  Hopefully, the matter can be moved forward quickly and a decision reached.

The judge pointed out that the only part of the healthcare law that his ruling strikes down is the requirement for individuals to buy health insurance and the parts of the law related to that requirement. 

I really have trouble with the concept that the government can require you to purchase something.  Massachusetts has had a similar health insurance plan in place since 2006.  It has created more problems than it has solved.  Health insurance premiums have risen to the point that the state has had to step in to attempt to control the price increases.  This has resulted in insurance companies changing the policies and benefits available.  Requiring everyone to have insurance has not been successful.  Emergency rooms lines in hospitals have not gotten shorter as the people who supported this bill claimed they would–they are the same or longer. 

The biggest problem with the requirement to buy insurance is the requirement that insurance companies cannot turn anyone down.  What has happened in Massachusetts is that people have paid the fine for not having insurance until they needed major medical care.  At that point they took out insurance, had the necessary procedures down, then dropped the insurance and went back to paying the fine.  This has created serious problems for the insurance companies.  What happens in this case is that the state collects the fines paid for not being insured, so the insurance company has no way to recoup the large, sudden expenditure needed to cover the ‘new’ patient.  Over a very short period of time, this is guaranteed to put private insurance companies out of business.  

Yesterday is history. Tomorrow is a mystery. Today is a gift. That’s why we call it ‘The Present’.”

                  Eleanor Roosevelt

The discussions on the bill to keep the current tax rates are getting very interesting.  The orginial deal negotiated with President Obama is dead.  The new deal has everything in it except the kitchen sink, and that’s probably there somewhere in the small print.  There is a tremendous amount of anger on both sides of the political spectrum (although for very different reasons).

On Friday, CNS News reported that the Senate won’t hold hearings before they vote on the Obama tax bill.  The bill is expected to be brought to the floor next week.

According to the article:

“…the bill also includes provisions that extend special tax breaks for autom racetracks and movie and television producers and that transfer revenues derived from federal excise taxes on rum to the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which use the money for, among other things, subsidizing the local production of rum.”

On Friday, CNS News also reported some of the details of the rum subsidy.  According to the article:

“…Section 755 of the bill, which can be found on the 68th page of the 74-page bill.

“The provision extends so-called “cover-over” payments that the federal government has been making to the governments of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Essentially, the program returns nearly all of the excise-tax revenue that the federal government collects on the sale of rum produced in these two U.S. territories.

“Currently, federal law charges an excise tax on all liquor produced and sold in the United States, including rum from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

“The special provision in the bill returns to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands $13.25 of the $13.50 per gallon excise tax on the rum produced there. In fiscal year 2008, those payments amounted to $371 million for Puerto Rico and almost $100 million for the U.S. Virgin Islands, according to a Congressional Research Service report.”

I have said this before.  A simple bill exchanging a continuation of the current tax rates for an extension of unemployment benefits is not wonderful, but acceptable.  A bill that includes every spending idea Congress can think of before the end of the year is not acceptable.  I hope this bill goes down in flames.  The Republicans can clean up the mess when they take over Congress.  If they fail to do so, they can expect to be voted out of office in November 2012.

One of the duties of the President of the United States is to appoint people to positions within the government.  Since theoretically no one person has a whole lot of authority, that really shouldn’t be too much of a big deal.  Well, sometimes it is. 

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about the recent elections at Delta Airlines where the flight attendants of the company decided to remain a union-free shop.  After a five-week campaign, the flight attendants voted 9,544 to 8,778 to remain union free.  Unfortunately that was not the end of the story.  The Association of Flight Attendants (AFA) has alleged that Delta interfered with the election by pressuring the flight attendants to vote against the union.  Delta denies the charges.  Now the union is asking the National Mediation Board (NMB) for a revote.  Well, let’s look at who President Obama has placed on the NMB–two of the panels three members are former airline union officials.

The article concludes:

“Delta workers have been courageous in their repeated attempts to resist this tide and remain masters of their own fate; unfortunately, the corrupt bargain between Big Labor and liberal politicians is conspiring to strangle their democratically expressed wishes.  It is outrageous that a federal board charged with resolving labor disputes is comprised of former union officials.  How can two former airline-union leaders possible adjudicate the Delta election in a dispassionate manner?  How is it possible that Puchala and Hoglander (the two board members) will not be forced to recuse themselves in llight of their obvious loyalties?”

Union leaders have become the new ‘greedy robber barrons’ of the past.  It is dangerous to have them so tightly woven into the fabric of our government.