I have British friends.  I believe that the histories or America and Britain will be forever intertwined.  It breaks my heart to read what I am about to post.  There is no way to apologize for the damage that has been done or for the kind of person who would authorize what happened.

Yesterday the U. K. Telegraph reported on some additional information leaked by Wikileaks.  As much as I have very mixed emotions about Wikileaks, what was leaked is important.

According to the article:

“Information about every Trident missile the US supplies to Britain will be given to Russia as part of an arms control deal signed by President Barack Obama next week.

“Defence analysts claim the agreement risks undermining Britain’s policy of refusing to confirm the exact size of its nuclear arsenal.”

I am not at all schooled in diplomacy and how diplomatic things work, but this seems to me to be a major breach of trust on the part of America.  America had no right to do this.

The article reports:

“Details of the behind-the-scenes talks are contained in more than 1,400 US embassy cables published to date by the Telegraph, including almost 800 sent from the London Embassy, which are published online today. The documents also show that:

“America spied on Foreign Office ministers by gathering gossip on their private lives and professional relationships.

“Intelligence-sharing arrangements with the US became strained after the controversy over Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantanamo Bay detainee who sued the Government over his alleged torture.

“David Miliband disowned the Duchess of York by saying she could not “be controlled” after she made an undercover TV documentary.

“Tens of millions of pounds of overseas aid was stolen and spent on plasma televisions and luxury goods by corrupt regimes.”

America and Britain have a history together.  They have worked in unison to spread freedom around the world.  I am so sorry that America currently has a President who chooses to forget the unique relationship between the two countries.

The article reports:

“Although the treaty was not supposed to have any impact on Britain, the leaked cables show that Russia used the talks to demand more information about the UK’s Trident missiles, which are manufactured and maintained in the US.

“Washington lobbied London in 2009 for permission to supply Moscow with detailed data about the performance of UK missiles. The UK refused, but the US agreed to hand over the serial numbers of Trident missiles it transfers to Britain.” 

It is disgusting that the Obama Administration betrayed the trust of one of our oldest and best allies.  It was a bad treaty to begin with; betraying a friend makes it worse.

I am not an economist–but I do occasionally pay attention to jobless numbers when they come out.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today that attempts to explain the latest set of numbers and the spin the White House is trying to put on them.

The January unemployment figure is listed at 9 per cent.  However, only 36,000 jobs were added to the job market. 

Mr. Morrissey reports:

“Looking at the A-6 table, which compares numbers January 2010 to January 2011 (not seasonally adjusted), we can see that the unemployment rate for those without disabilities has dropped from 10.4% to 9.7%.  The number of non-disabled adults outside the work force has grown substantially in that period, from 62.8 million to 64.7 million.  That far outstrips population growth and indicates that people are still leaving the work force in large numbers.  In the A-16 table for the same period (not seasonally adjusted), the number of people outside the workforce has grown from 83.9 million to 86.2 million, again showing a large increase.

“The topline rate number looks better, but it also looks increasingly irrelevant.  The Department of Labor shows that the average monthly growth of jobs over the last 12 months has been 97,000, not enough to keep up with population growth.  That’s the key measure, and it’s simply not getting any better, nor any more consistent.”

Basically, you can make numbers say anthing you want them to say.  I have no idea if the economy is getting better or not.  What I do know is that I am paying more at the gas pump and more at the grocery store.  That tells me that things are not headed in a direction I want them to go. 

A few days ago, I posted the link to the video of retired Lt. Col. Allen West speaking on the subject of terrorism.  What I didn’t post was the reason that the Lt. Col. is retired.  This is the story:

This new Congressman was an extremely popular commander in Iraq .  He was forced to retire because during an intense combat action a few of his men were captured.  At the same time his men had captured one of the guys who were with the Iraqis who captured his men. 

Knowing that time was crucial and his interrogators were not getting anywhere with the prisoner COL West took matters into his own hands.  He burst into the room and demanded thru an interpreter that the prisoner tell him where his men were being taken.  The prisoner refused so COL West took out his pistol and placed it into the prisoner’s crotch and fired.  Then the COL told the prisoner that the next shot would not miss.  So the prisoner said he would show where the American service members were being taken.  The Americans were rescued.  Someone filed a report on incorrect handling of prisoners.  COL West was forced to retire.

I have very mixed emotions about this event.  I don’t support the idea of torturing prisoners.  However, I am relatively sure that had Lt. Col. West not acted in the manner in which he did, there would have been American deaths as a result.  I would like to point out that the prisoner was not harmed in any way–he was simply frightened.  If the situation had been a dirty bomb in New York City, would a policeman who acted in a similar matter be disciplined?

I think the thing we need to remember here is that we are at war.  People’s lives are at stake.  The role of our military is to make sure that we lose as few of our men as possible when making sure the terrorists lose as many of theirs as possible.  If I were running the government, I would want our enemies to be unsure whether or not they would be tortured.  The fact that we have made it very public that we will not torture (or scare) prisoners has not made any difference in the way the terrorists treat our soldiers when they are captured.  War is ugly.  I think we need to let the people fighting it to be somewhat ugly (within reason–the terrorists was scared–not harmed).  Unfortunately, I am not sure that our current military understands that.

Hugh Hewitt posted an article at Townhall.com about the impact some of the decisions recently made in the state of California will have on the business climate there. 

Mr. Hewitt reports:

“Earlier this week I wrote on the so-called “Green Chemistry Initiative” for the Washington Examiner, and one of my law partners quickly emailed to let me know that wasn’t even the worst business news out of the state that week! Gary Wolensky subsequently posted at HughHewitt.com about the California Supreme Court’s decision in Kwikset Corporation v. The Superior Court of Orange County, and the phone has been ringing and email in-box filling up since then with exclamations of disbelief. The decision opens the doors to thousands of new nuisance lawsuits against every product on every shelf in California, even as the new “green chemistry” regulations when they appear in final form will apply to all products sold in the state. 2011 is opening with a double feature horror flick for job generators even as the state careens towards unofficial but very real bankruptcy.”

Mr. Hewitt is a practicing attorney as well as a law professor in California and is very much in tune with court decisions that impact business.  The Kwickset case essentially says that anyone can sue a company even if they were not harmed by the product.  If your pancake mix has a small error in the ingredients label, anyone in California can sue the company that manufactures it.  This decision, plus the 90 pages of ‘green chemistry’ legislation is going to keep businesses moving out of California to states where they do not have to deal with such issues.

If the states are the laboratories for government policy, California is showing all of us how to bankrupt a state.  That’s a shame, since it is such a beautiful state.  The questions is, “When Congress is asked to bail out California because it has gone broke as a result of the laws it has passed, what will Congress do?”

Yesterday’s Daily Caller reported that the New York City Council is preparing to ban smoking in all parks, beaches, boardwalks, and even Times Square. 

The article reports:

“When this legislation is passed, all New Yorkers will be able to enjoy a walk in the park or a day at the beach without having to inhale secondhand smoke,” said Council Speaker Christine Quinn when she and Mayor Michael Bloomberg unveiled the proposed bill last year.  “This bill will save lives and make New York City a healthier place to live.”

I am not a smoker.  I am also fairly sensitive to cigarette smoke.  However, I am concerned about what I see as the continuing erosion of the rights of smokers.  I have really mixed emotions about this.  I appreciate not having to deal with smoke in restaurants.  I appreciate not smelling smoke at the beach.  However, if secondhand smoke is that toxic, why is smoking legal?  Why is the government subsidizing tobacco farmers?

Why is the City Council targeting smokers?  Don’t they have anything better to do?  Is second hand smoke a major cause of New York City’s air pollution? 

Bloomberg.com is reporting today that U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman has ruled that the Obama Administration acted in contempt of court by continuing its deepwater drilling moratorium after the court had struck it down. 

According to the article:

“Interior Department regulators acted with “determined disregard” by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

“”Each step the government took following the court’s imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance,” Feldman said in the ruling.

“”Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government’s contempt,” Feldman said.”

The Presidency was never intended to be all-powerful.  There are three branches of the American government–the Presidency, the Congress, and the Judicial–they are designed to create checks and balances on each other’s power.  The Obama Administration’s ignoring of a judicial ruling is disturbing.

The article reports:

“”President Obama claims to have lifted the Gulf moratorium, yet not a single deepwater permit has been issued in nine months,” Jim Adams, the association’s president, said in a release after the ruling. “As a result, thousands of workers are out of jobs, Americans are paying more for gasoline and heating oil, and our nation is becoming even more dependent on unstable nations for our energy needs.”

“Feldman also ordered the government to pay the legal fees of Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC, which filed the initial lawsuit. The company had described the fees as “significant.”

“The case is Hornbeck Offshore Services LLC v. Salazar, 2:10-cv-01663, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana New Orleans).”

As the price of oil rises to $100 a barrel, the informal moratorium on deepwater drilling is dragging the American economy down.  The moratorium needs to end.

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner reported that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun to enforce new regulations on greenhouse gas emissions from new or expanded power plants.  The EPA has also issued its first exemption to the new rules.

According to the Environment & Energy News:

“The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.

“According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to “grandfather” projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).”

If you look further into this ‘exemption’, it reminds me of all the waivers given in Obamacare. 

The article at the Washington Examiner reports:

“The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.”

I am sure that the fact that GE CEO Jeff Immelt is so close to President Obama has nothing to do with this exemption.  Yeah, right.  The government under the present administraiton is getting totally out of control.  This is Chicago politics in Washington.  It needs to be stopped.  Congress is planning to act to restrict the EPA in their actions (they are putting in place the ‘cap and trade bill’ that Congress could not pass).  I hope Congress is successful.

Please follow this link to the U. S. Geological Survey website for their report on oil resources in the United States. 

This is the information on North Dakota and Montana’s Bakken Formation:

The Bakken Formation estimate is larger than all other current USGS oil assessments of the lower 48 states and is the largest “continuous” oil accumulation ever assessed by the USGS. A “continuous” oil accumulation means that the oil resource is dispersed throughout a geologic formation rather than existing as discrete, localized occurrences. The next largest “continuous” oil accumulation in the U.S. is in the Austin Chalk of Texas and Louisiana, with an undiscovered estimate of 1.0 billions of barrels of technically recoverable oil.

“It is clear that the Bakken formation contains a significant amount of oil – the question is how much of that oil is recoverable using today’s technology?” said Senator Byron Dorgan, of North Dakota. “To get an answer to this important question, I requested that the U.S. Geological Survey complete this study, which will provide an up-to-date estimate on the amount of technically recoverable oil resources in the Bakken Shale formation.”

The USGS estimate of 3.0 to 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil has a mean value of 3.65 billion barrels. Scientists conducted detailed studies in stratigraphy and structural geology and the modeling of petroleum geochemistry. They also combined their findings with historical exploration and production analyses to determine the undiscovered, technically recoverable oil estimates.

USGS worked with the North Dakota Geological Survey, a number of petroleum industry companies and independents, universities and other experts to develop a geological understanding of the Bakken Formation. These groups provided critical information and feedback on geological and engineering concepts important to building the geologic and production models used in the assessment.

Five continuous assessment units (AU) were identified and assessed in the Bakken Formation of North Dakota and Montana – the Elm Coulee-Billings Nose AU, the Central Basin-Poplar Dome AU, the Nesson-Little Knife Structural AU, the Eastern Expulsion Threshold AU, and the Northwest Expulsion Threshold AU.

At the time of the assessment, a limited number of wells have produced oil from three of the assessments units in Central Basin-Poplar Dome, Eastern Expulsion Threshold, and Northwest Expulsion Threshold.
The Elm Coulee oil field in Montana, discovered in 2000, has produced about 65 million barrels of the 105 million barrels of oil recovered from the Bakken Formation.

The bottom line here is very simple–we have the energy suppllies to be self-sufficient.  What we don’t have is a President and Congress smart enough to develop and use them.

CNS News is reporting today that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stated that the way for America to solve its energy problem is for the government to get out of the way and allow the private sector to develop the country’s own natural resources–coal, oil, and natural gas.

Karen Harbert, president and CEO of the Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy, spoke Tuesday at the Chamber’s national headquarters in Washington, D.C., at an event to unveil the institute’s new plan, “Facing Our Energy Realities: A  to Fuel Our Recovery.”

According to the article:

“The plan – based on an “Energy Reality Tour” involving travel to 30 states and meeting with some 15,000 business leaders across the country over the last year – calls for maximizing U.S. energy sources, ending regulations that hinder developing those sources, making clean energy more affordable and eliminating energy trade barriers.

“”The point of this plan is to recognize our economic reality,” Harbert said. “And it is not to spend a whole lot of new taxpayers’ dollars.

“”In fact, it’s to find ways that are increasingly revenue neutral; that will increase the availability of energy while at the same time removing barriers to investment that will actually create revenue and create jobs in this country,” Harbert said.

“The plan will be submitted to the Obama administration and Congress, Harbert said.”

If nothing else, the situation in Egypt should make us more wary of being dependent on energy sources that may not be reliably friendly to us.  Common sense dictates that developing our own energy resources, rather than depending on anyone else to supply our energy needs, is a good idea.

The Hill is reporting today that the vote on Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) amendment to repeal the healthcare reform law would take place in the late Wednesday afternoon, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., because many senators want to speak on it.

According to the article:

“The Senate will also vote Wednesday on an amendment offered by Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who could face a tough race in 2012, to repeal one of the healthcare law’s most controversial provisions. Stabenow’s amendment would strike a requirement that businesses report to the IRS vendor payments exceeding $600 annually.”

Although I agree with striking down that part of the law (and also the rest of the law), we need to remember that the requirement to report vendor payments was one way Congress expected to pay for the law.  To strike down that part of the law is to increase the overall cost of the law.

Democrats are in a very awkward position with this vote.  For example, the article reports:

“Stabenow’s amendment will give political cover to endangered Democrats such as West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin (D), who have called for the healthcare reform law to be fixed but do not plan to support McConnell’s proposal to repeal it.

“”The president’s plan — ‘Obamacare,’ as it’s been called — is far too reaching. It’s overreaching. It needs to have a lot of it repealed,” Manchin said in October. “If you can’t fix that, repeal the whole thing.”

“Manchin said through a spokeswoman Tuesday that he would not vote to repeal the entire law, however.”

The healthcare reform act is a bad law that is not supported by the people of America.  The question at hand is very simple, “Will the Democrats listen to the people, or will they continue on their path to drive over a cliff?”  It should be an interesting debate and an even more interesting vote.

On June 20, 2005, the BBC quoted Condoleeza Rice:

“The US pursuit of stability in the Middle East at the expense of democracy had “achieved neither”,”

The article commented:

“The BBC’s Frank Gardner said her comments marked a complete departure for the US, and were “immensely risky”.

“She criticised Egypt and Saudi Arabia, where she arrived after leaving Cairo, for cracking down on dissenters.

“She also called on Egypt to ensure its upcoming election was free and fair.

“Our security correspondent says the remarks not only risked alienating Cairo and Riyadh – by making such calls for democracy the US could open the way for more Islamist governments.”

These statements were made more than five years ago.  The Bush Administration pushed for open and fair elections in Egypt to be held in September 2005, and President Mubarak promised to hold them.  Unfortunately, that was not what happened.

In December 2005, the Washington Post reported:

“President Hosni Mubarak, who received a new six-year mandate in another unfair election in September, used such fraud last month to take away the parliamentary seat of Egypt’s foremost liberal democrat, Ayman Nour, who was the runner-up in the presidential election. This week a Cairo judge known for his closeness to Mr. Mubarak ordered Mr. Nour jailed before a session today of his trial on bogus charges of forgery. Several months ago Mr. Nour’s principal accuser recanted in court, saying he had been forced by state security police to fabricate his allegations. Yet there appears to be a good chance that Mr. Nour will be declared guilty — moving the leader of Mr. Mubarak’s secular democratic opposition from parliament to prison.”

Now, back to the present situtation.  Michael Medved posted an article at Townhall.com detailing what he considers the two lessons we can learn from the current crisis in Egypt.

Lesson One:  No amount of foreign aid can redeem a deeply dysfunctional society.  Despite receiving large amounts of money (and military equipment) from the United States since 1970 (following the peace treaty with Israel, Egypt got the Sinai and tons of money and equipment, what did Israel get?)  Egypt has voted against the United States at the United Nations 70% of the time.  The United States’ foreign aid budget has gotten so totally out of hand (aside from accomplishing little) that some Israelis have said that they will back a reduction in American assistance to the Jewish state if the administration simultaneously eliminates money to Israel’s Arab neighbors.  Foreign aid should be given sparingly where there is a humanitarian crisis; otherwise, we have needs at home.

Lesson Two:  Agreements with corrupt, autocratic governments have limited value.  Treaties with leaders that do not reflect the wishes of their people may not be worth the paper they are written on when the leader is ousted.  We saw that in Iran and now in Egypt.

However, the article does say that there may have been some positive results of our actions during the past forty years:

“Embracing the messages from the Egyptian crisis doesn’t mean that Hosni Mubarak deserves our contempt, or that the United States would somehow gain from suddenly and cravenly cutting loose our most important Arab ally. To the extent that U.S. aid purchased long-standing cooperation from the most populous nation in the region (one third of all the world’s Arabs live in Egypt), that assistance may have constituted a prudent investment, and regardless of the future of the Sinai Accords, the epochal agreement negotiated by Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin brought thirty years of relative (if frosty) calm to Israeli-Egyptian relations.”

I have stated before that I do not believe there is a happy ending to the current crisis in Egypt.  I believe that at the end of this chaos is a an Egyptian government heavily influenced by the Muslim Brotherhood.  The stated goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to create a world-wide caliphate.  Unfortunately their agenda is not taken seriously by our government, and they have had advisors to American presidents in place since the George W. Bush Administration.  Having them play a major role in the Egyptian government (either openly or behind the scenes) will not be a good thing for the Middle East or for America. 

This is a link to some comments by Lt. Col. Allen West posted at the American Family Association website.  Lt. Col. West, a retired Army officer who did combat duty in Iraq, was responding to a Marine who asked the question, how do you answer people who say that terrorists are following a “warped” version of Islam?  Please follow the link and listen to his comments.  His answer is particularly relevant in view of what is currently happening in Egypt.

National Review Online‘s the Corner posted an update on the progress of the Financial Reform law that Congress passed last summer.  When Congress passed the Financial Reform bill, much was made of the fact that this bill would put in place regulations that would prevent the kind of financial meltdown that occurred in 2008.  There was one glaring problem with the bill–it did nothing to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill did, however, require that the White House release a report to Congress detailing how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could be reformed.  They were required by the law to release the report yesterday–the report has not yet been released.

The article reports:

“The Obama Administration’s repeated inability to propose a plan to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac calls into question their commitment to taxpayer protection and their ability to effectively govern on this issue,” Hensarling added. “After more than $150 billion in Fannie and Freddie bailouts, we can no longer afford to allow the Administration to kick the can down the road.”

“Financial Services Committee chairman Spencer Baucus (R., Ala.) also criticized the administration, saying in a statement that “the Democrats always offer an excuse for not meeting deadlines, even those they themselves impose.””

There really is not a need for the report–anyone with any common sense could write it in five minutes.  Until the government stops underwriting risky mortgages and wondering why there are so many foreclosures, I suspect we will not be immune from further financial challenges.

The story begins with a Washington Examiner article posted yesterday.  The article explains some of the details in the U.S. District Court decision regarding Obamacare. 

The article reports:

In the suit brought by 26 states, (U.S. District Court Judge Roger) Vinson found that “Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority” by including the individual mandate and held the entire act unconstitutional “because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable” from the rest of the law.” 

Yesterday’s Daily Caller reports that:

“Obama administration officials are vowing to continue implementation of the president’s health care law “apace” despite a second ruling that the law is unconstitutional, calling the decision by Judge Robert Vinson “a plain case of judicial overreaching” well outside mainstream legal thought.”

The article points out that the states represented in the case may use to ruling to avoid funding the implementation of Obamacare in their states. 

Next, Guy Benson at Townhall.com is reporting that Mitch McConnell is planning to attach the repeal of Obamacare bill as an amendment to Federal Aviation legislation currently being considered in the Senate.  This sets up a very interesting situation.  Democrats have already introduced legislation to eliminate the 1099 small business requirement on expenditures of $600.  The Democrats are hoping that if they can be seen as opposing some of the more horrible aspects of the bill, they can get away with voting against repeal.  The problem for the Democrats is very simple–the majority of Americans support repeal of the bill.  As Obamacare begins to take effect, there are fewer options in health insurance, the cost of some health insurance policies have risen sharply while some of the covereage has decreased.  There are also new restrictions on Flexible spending accounts.  The American people are beginning to see that many of the promises made to get Obamacare passed are already being broken. 

I am not a lawyer, so I am not sure what happens next.  However, it does seem to me that a Contempt of Court charge may not be too far away if the Obama Admininstration continues to move ahead with healthcare reform before this case is decided at the Supreme Court.  We are not anywhere near a happy ending for anyone.

Thomas Sowell posted an article at Townhall.com about the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to get involved in the issue of spilled milk.  Yes, you read that right. 

The article states:

“In a classic example of this process (any power given to any bureaucracy for any purpose can be stretched far beyond that purpose), the EPA has decided that, since milk contains oil, it has the authority to force farmers to comply with new regulations to file “emergency management” plans to show how they will cope with spilled milk, how farmers will train “first responders” and build “containment facilities” if there is a flood of spilled milk.”

Why not just call in the local alley cats to lap it up?  I apologize.  I am not taking this seriously.  As part of this new initiative, the EPA will be hiring people to inspect farmers’ reports and prosecute farmers who do not fully comply with the new regulations.  Thus, more money will be taken from the taxpayers and given to the government. 

President Obama recently stated that he was planning to explore the possibility of reducing burdensome regulations.  I think I have a suggestion as to where he might start!