As some countries around the world consider recognition of a Palestinian State, there are some things involved in that recognition that they should keep in mind.  I think (although I am not sure) that the goal here is peace in the Middle East.  If that is true, recognizing Palestine as a country at this point may not be realistic path to that goal.

Yesterday’s Jerusalem Post posted an article dealing with the current Israeli-Palestinian situation.  The article points out:

“Netanyahu bewailed what he said had become the Palestinian “three no’s”: No to recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, no to dropping their demand for a Palestinian refugee “right of return,” and no to agreed-upon security arrangements on the ground. The prime minister was making a reference to the Arab League’s Khartoum Resolution of September 1, 1967, and its “Three No’s”: “no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with it.” Netanyahu, who informed the MKs that White House senior adviser Dennis Ross was due back later this week, said the Palestinians had shown no willingness to compromise on either substantive or procedural issues. They have shown “no movement,” he said.”

I will admit to being a rather simple person, but this seems very clear to me.  Why in the world would anyone recognize a nations that says it will not recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people and expect peace to follow?   How can I make peace with my neighbor if their goal is to drive me out of my house and take it over?  Does common sense exist when countries are dealing with the Middle East?

Aside from the obvious changing of the guard, there are some interesting things going on in Congress this year.  Yesterday The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room posted an article about John Boehner’s response to Democrat’s requests not to repeal Obamacare.  The Senate’s top five Democrats sent a note to Representative Boehner vowing to block a House bill repealing healthcare reform.

According to the article, this is Representative Boehner’s reply:

“Senators Reid, Durbin, Schumer, Murray and Stabenow:

“Thank you for reminding us – and the American people – of the backroom deal that you struck behind closed doors with ‘Big Pharma,’ resulting in bigger profits for the drug companies, and higher prescription drug costs for 33 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Part D, at a cost to the taxpayers of $42.6 billion.

“The House is going to pass legislation to repeal that now.  You’re welcome.

“- Speaker-Designate John Boehner’s Press Office”

Meanwhile, the American Thinker reported yesterday that Obamacare has stopped the construction at 45 physician owned hospitals nationwide.  Huh?  The article reports:

“Kenneth Artz of the Heartland Institute explains, “Section 6001 of the health care law effectively bans new physician-owned hospitals (POHs) from starting up, and it keeps existing ones from expanding.” Politico adds, “Friday [New Year’s Eve] marked the last day physician-owned hospitals could get Medicare certification covering their new or expanded hospitals, one of the latest provisions of the reform law to go into effect.””

Why is a healthcare bill attempting to control the growth of hospitals? 

The article further reports:

“This little-noticed but particularly eqregious aspect of Obamacare is, by all accounts, a concession to the powerful American Hospital Association (AHA), a supporter of Obamacare, which prefers to have its member hospitals operate without competition from hospitals owned by doctors.

“Dr, Michael Russell, president of Physician Hospitals of America, which has filed suit to try to stop this selective building-ban from going into effect, says, “There are so many regulations [in Obamacare] and they are so onerous and intrusive that we believe that the section [Section 6001] was deliberately designed so no physician owned hospital could successfully comply.””

Here’s another aspect of Obamacare–if it is repealed, thousands of construction workers will be able to go backk to work!  Hopefully, Congress has the backbone to do this!

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted a very interesting article yesterday about the murder of Hamas leader Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai last year.  The article links to a GQ article by Ronen Bergman about the killing.

The article points out the Dubai in its coverage of the murder failed to mention some basic parts of the events surrounding the killing:

“Until now, the authorities have established a clear, detailed timeline. By studying hundreds of hours of closed-circuit security footage, they have meticulously reconstructed the movements of the many characters involved in the unfolding drama. But when Al-Mabhouh arrives at the mall, the river of information suddenly goes dry. What did he do during the next four hours, which were to be the last of his life? Where did he go? With whom did he meet? The official report does not provide even a sketchy outline of the missing hours.

“According to Israeli intelligence sources, Al-Mabhouh met with a banker who was assisting him with various international weapons transactions, and with his regular contact from the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who flew in to coordinate the delivery of two large shipments of weapons to Hamas the following month. The Dubai police had good reason to gloss over this part of the narrative, if they were indeed aware of it. Providing details of Al-Mabhouh’s contacts would have been highly embarrassing to authorities eager to paint Dubai as a squeaky-clean international business center. It would also have served as a reminder that the victim of this cold-blooded Israeli execution had a fair amount of blood on his hands, raising inconvenient questions about why Al-Mabhouh was there in the first place–questions that the media largely forgot to ask in the furor that erupted after his assassination.”

The GQ article is a detailed explaination of the mission.  It shows where mistakes were made and the consequences of those mistakes.  It points out a very interesting fact about Israeli secret intelligence missions:

“When it comes to false identities and false passports, the Mossad has a unique problem, one that most Western intelligence services do not face. When the CIA or the British SIS (or MI6, as it is commonly known) send an operative into the field, they can usually provide him or her with a valid U.S. or U.K. passport issued in whatever false name and identity the individual will be using. But an Israeli spy cannot use an Israeli passport, since the most important targets for Israeli espionage are in countries that do not maintain diplomatic relations with Israel. For this reason, the need for foreign documentation has always been an acute one in the Mossad, which has historically resolved this problem by forging what it needed. Naturally, this is done without the authorization of the countries involved.”

I don’t support ‘hit teams’ going into foreign countries and killing people they deem as evil, but I can easily understand why Israel thought this was necessary.   Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh (aside from killing two defenseless Israeli soldiers in 1989) has been financing and planning suicide bombings in Israel and the trafficking of huge amounts of rockets and sophisticated weaponry into Gaza, which have been used to devastating effect since the start of the second intifada in 2000.  By killing Al-Mabhouh, Israel probably saved a lot of lives.  Again, I don’t approve of assassinations of private citizens by foreign countries, but until the world takes terrorism seriously enough to deal with people who sell arms to terrorists, I am not sure there is an alternative.

On Friday, the Washington Examiner posted an article about the fact that the recent census showed that states with lower taxes have higher rates of population growth than states with higher taxes.  We have previously noted on this blog that when ‘millionaires taxes’ are put in place, millionaires leave the states where they are enacted.  The article at the Examiner shows the actual statistics on the migration to low-tax states. 

“Last Tuesday, my Examiner colleague Michael Barone did a good general breakdown of income tax rates versus population growth and found that 7 of the 9 states which have no income tax all grew higher than the national average while the 2 that didn’t grew fastest in their regions.”

This isn’t really a surprise.  It actually goes along with the idea that people, generally speaking, would like to keep as much of the money they earn as possible.  That is not really a hard concept to grasp.  It goes along with the idea that when the government taxes an activity you get less of it and when the government gives a tax break to an activity, you get more of it. 

The article has charts and graphs showing how all the states compare in taxes and growth.  It’s an amazing article.

The article concludes that there is a reason that Texas is responsible for creating half the new jobs in the country last year–low taxes.  Tort reform didn’t hurt either!

One of the arguments made in the lame-duck session of Congress for the passage of the START Treaty was that we needed a way to check on what the Russians were doing and, oh yeah, don’t worry about that silly little thing in the preamble about missile defense.  Well, that silly little thing has come back to haunt us.

Guy Benson at Townhall.com and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air are both reporting that the Russian Duma has begun its discussion on the START Treaty. 

Guy Benson at Townhall reports:

“The State Duma plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems’ deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the US and Russia, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs says.

“”During the ratification of START in the US Congress the American lawmakers noted that the link between strategic offensive armed forces and antimissile defense systems is not juridically binding for the parties. They referred to the fact that this link was fixed only in the preamble of the document. Such an approach can be regarded as the US’ attempt to find an option to build up its strategic potential and the Russian lawmakers cannot agree with this,” Kosachev says.”

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air reports:

“It is not surprising that there are differences in interpretation of the treaty between the Russian and the American side. Russia insisted on inserting missile defense provisions into the preamble, making it obvious that they viewed this provision as having some importance. Yet the White House has stated that it is non-binding. And to further complicate matters, the administration denied the Senate the opportunity to understand the dispute better, by refusing to share treaty negotiating documents. Now that the Senate has approved the treaty without first understanding how it would be implemented, the Russian Duma will attempt to modify the accord to impose missile defense restrictions — as critics of the accord predicted would happen.

“The START Treaty ratification process is already a mess. And it is a mess because the Obama administration was not candid about the meaning of the agreement. If the Duma alters the accord in an attempt to impose new restrictions on America’s defensive capabilities, the Obama administration will have a full-blown diplomatic incident on its hands.”

Whoops.  We were suckered by the Russians and the White House.  Let’s not let it happen again.

There are some real questions about the recent election in the Ivory Coast.  The current president, Laurent Gbagbo, has claimed that there was serious election fraud in the recent election. 

According to an article at Wire Update:

“Côte d’Ivoire’s Constitutional Council on Friday overturned Sunday’s run-off results and declares incumbent president Laurent Gbagbo as winner.”  

“…Goude and Gbagbo’s supporters want an international investigation to be conducted about the alleged election fraud. They said the results would validate the Ivorian Constitutional Commission’s ruling that declared Gbagbo the winner.”

The thing to understand here is that there were armed supporters of Gbagbo’s Muslim opponent, Alassane Ouatarra, who were asked to disarm before the election, but failed to comply.  When you look closely at what is happening here, it appears that the neighboring Muslim countries are attempted to set up a Muslim state in the Ivory Coast.  Unfortunately, most of the international community is coming down on the wrong side of this issue.

In recent years, America has certified elections that were seriously flawed–Venezuela is one recent example.  The situation in the Ivory Coast is not a result of a President who refuses to give up power–it is the result of a Muslim who wants to set up a Muslim state in the country.  When you consider the slaughter of Christians in other African countries controlled by Muslims, it might be a really good idea to keep President Gbagbo in office.

Yesterday the Christian Science Monitor at its Adam Smith Institute Blog reported that European nations have begun seizing private pensions.

The article reports:

“The most striking example is Hungary, where last month the government made the citizens an offer they could not refuse. They could either remit their individual retirement savings to the state, or lose the right to the basic state pension (but still have an obligation to pay contributions for it). In this extortionate way, the government wants to gain control over $14bn of individual retirement savings.”

Other countries are beginning to follow similar paths–Bulgaria was forced to back down from a plan to transfer $300m of private early retirement savings to the state pension scheme.  The trade unions protested, and finally only about 20% of the original plans were implemented.  In Poland, the plan is for the government to transfer of 1/3 of future contributions from individual retirement accounts to the state-run social security system.

The article reports what has happened in Ireland:

“In 2001, the National Pension Reserve Fund was brought into existence for the purpose of supporting pensions of the Irish people in the years 2025-2050. The scheme was also supposed to provide for the pensions of some public sector employees (mainly university staff). However, in March 2009, the Irish government earmarked €4bn from this fund for rescuing banks. In November 2010, the remaining savings of €2.5bn was seized to support the bailout of the rest of the country.”

France has decided to earmark €33bn from the national reserve pension fund FRR to reduce the short-term pension scheme deficit. 

The article reaches a very valid conclusion:

“It looks like although the governments are able to enforce general participation in pension schemes, they do not seem to be the best guardians of the money accumulated there.”

We need to learn from the mistakes of our European friends.

On December 30, CNS News reported that the EPA has taken the unprecedented step of directly issue greenhouse gas permits to Texas industries beginning in January because the state has openly refused to comply with new federal regulations.

According to the article:

“Texas and the EPA have disagreed for years over pollution regulation, but the hostility intensified recently with Republican Gov. Rick Perry accusing the EPA and the Obama administration of overstepping boundaries and meddling in states’ rights. With a more conservative state Legislature about to convene next year, there’s appetite to keep up that fight.

“The EPA, meanwhile, by flexing its muscles in Texas, may be able to send a message to other states that the days when the agency allowed contentious issues to languish unresolved have ended. Other states have had their differences with the EPA, and at least a dozen have come together in a lawsuit — along with Texas — challenging new greenhouse gas regulations.”

I have stated before–I am NOT in favor of pollution!  However, I am not convinced that the people in Washington have a better idea of what is going on in an individual state better than the people running that state.  I am not convinced that Washington bureaucrats are acting in the best interests of Americans–I think special interest groups have taken over the beltway and need to be shown the door.

Texas is one of the few states with a booming economy right now.  The state has changed the rules on liability lawsuits and changed its tax policy to make the state more business friendly.  The approach has worked–the population of Texas grew 20.6 per cent between 2000 and 2010.  The success of the business model of the state of Texas is not a good thing for the Obama Administration–it shows that good tax policy (lower taxes) and tort reform works–that is not a message Washington wants to hear.

It will be interesting to watch this battle play out!

Unless you live in a cave, you hear snippits from the major media every day.  This short little clips involve everything from the latest celebrity divorce to the climbing price of gasoline.  I don’t think anyone avoids hearing them.  The question becomes, “How much of what you hear can you believe?”

Byron York at the Washington Examiner  posted a story yesterday shining some light on one of the current sound bites.  On a recent “Meet the Press” show Valerie Jarrett stated that President Obama’s biggest regret is that all of his hard work in the White House has kept him isolated from the American people.  He really hasn’t had a chance to leave the White House to spend time with us.  Awwwww.  The President is trying to figure out a way that in the coming two years of his administration he can spend more time outside the nation’s capital talking to us.  Wow.

Sounds great until you confuse the issue with a few facts.  As of January 1 (the date of the article in the Washington Examiner), President Obama had been in office for 712 days.  President Obama has spent 339 of those days (48%) outside of Washington.  Fifty-eight of those days were spent on vacation, and 35 of those days were spent at Camp David. 

The article also comments on the idea that President Obama needs to ‘engage’ the American people.  Of the 712 President Obama has been in office, there have been only 45 days that the President hasn’t made a presidential public appearance or issued a statement.  I’m actually already feeling pretty ‘engaged.’

There will be a lot of comments made in the coming year that will attempt to improve the President’s approval ratings.  The trick is to separate the fact from the fiction.

The Nation has posted an article detailing the cost of President Obama’s Hawaiian vacation.  I don’t begrudge the man and his family a vacation, but they have spent $1.5 million on their holiday.  This just seems inappropriate at a time when the unemployment rate in America has hovered around 10 per cent for the past six months. 

The article reports:

“The White House would not comment on the cost of the stay. A spokesman said the president’s holiday expenses are in line with those of previous presidents. But the Hawaii Reporter claimed: ‘They could have chosen a less expensive and more secure place to stay such as a beachfront home on the Kaneohe Marine Corps Air Station – just a two-minute drive away from the Kailuana Place property where they are now.

“‘The president visits the military base daily to workout, bowl with his kids or enjoy the more private beach there. ‘He also could have stayed at a home 15 minutes away on the beach fronting Bellows Air Force Base as President Bill Clinton did.'”

Watching the behavior of the Obamas in the White House reminds me of watching someone who has won the lottery.  There seems to be no limit on the spending and no sensitivity to the fact that many Americans are struggling financially.  The President and his family are entitled to a vacation, but to spend $1.5 million dollars on a vacation at this time is a little tone deaf.  We elect a President to lead the country–not act as if he is competing for a part on “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”

Best Wishes To Everyone For A Safe And Prosperous New Year!

Today’s American Thinker posted their list of the Top Ten Stories The Media either missed or missed the point of.  I will try to summarize the list; it was given in no particular order.

1.  Obamacare–there were a number of parts of the story the media did not fully cover–the bending and breaking of Congressional rules in order to pass the bill, whether of not the mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance was constitutional, the total cost of the bill, and the impact of the bill on the business community.

2.  The fact that in general most Americans and most people living in Arizona supported the tougher immigration laws passed in that state.

3.  Congress failed in its duties to pass a budget this year.  They did not want to vote on a budget before the election because they did not want to be held accountable. 

4.  The internal threat of jihad–mosques preaching radicalism, honor killings, and other things that are creeping into the American culture.

5.  The ‘race card’ is no longer effective as a political tool–people are looking at candidates according to what they stand for–not their race or ethnicity.

6.  The JournoList scandal–it has been obvious for some time that the mainstream media all operate from the same viewpoint.  The JournoList confirmed an agenda.  The media is no longer an objective body of news that can be trusted.

7.  “Local law enforcement assists SEIU thugs — http://video.foxnews.com/v/4207278/did-seiu-protesters-cross-the-line In May, hundreds of SEIU protesters were bused to the home of a Bank of America executive in Montgomery County, Maryland. Protestors were on this family’s front porch chanting and waving signs as a scared 14-yr old was home alone.”  I saw similar union activities in Massachusetts during the time I was working on a Congressional campaign.

8.  The faulty research on global warming was exposed. 

9.  The federal shutting down of drilling in the Gulf and its impact on the economy of the region.

10.  States rights are becoming an issue as the government attempts to grab more power.  That’s good news.

I started this blog because I wanted to report the stories that I did not believe the major media outlets were reporting fairly or completely.  The above list is composed of just those stories.  All of us need to be aware of how our major media news coverage impacts the way we see things.  This coming year will be a year where we all need to pay attention.

Yesterday The Hill‘s Blog Briefing Room posted the story that Representative Lynn Jenkins (R-Kansas), who had introduced a bill last summer to ban lame-duck Congressional sessions except in the case of national emergency, is planning to re-introduce that bill in the new session of Congress.  Representative Jenkins told FOX News, “I am just concerned with the amount of activity that we see happening in these lame-duck sessions, when the folks [who were not reelected] are no longer accountable to the people that they represent.”

Lame-duck sessions were originally set up to provide for the amount of travel time it took new Congressmen to get to Washington after having been elected.  Originally, the term of Congress began in March to allow for travel time and a smooth transition.  Needless to say, travel time is no longer an issue–Congressmen show up early and often! 

The article points out:

“Critics of legislating during lame-duck sessions argue that lawmakers who are not re-elected don’t have the same accountability that members do during normal sessions, and could and often do vote against their constituents’ interests. In making their case, they cite the 20th amendment to the Constitution, which establishes the beginning and ending of the terms of elected federal offices and deals with scenarios in which there is no president-elect. It was ratified in 1933.”

To me, accountability is the issue.   We have become so politicized as a country that there were people in the lame-duck session who were voting for party interests rather than the interests of the people they were supposed to represent.  Some of the things that were passed in this lame-duck session were things representatives were unwilling to vote on before the election because they did not want to be held accountable.  That goes against every concept of representative government–it is simply wrong.

I hope the Representative Jenkins is successful in getting this bill passed.  Accountability is part of what makes a representative republic work–lame-duck sessions are not part of this picture.