When The Entire Story Is Not Being Told, Does The Public Have A Right To Know ?

There was a small dust-up this week between the President and Carla Marinucci, a reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle. 

The San Francisco Chronicle reports:

“White House officials have banished one of the best political reporters in the country from the approved pool of journalists covering presidential visits to the Bay Area for using now-standard multimedia tools to gather the news.

“The Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci – who like many contemporary reporters, has a phone with video capabilities on her at all times – shot some protestors interrupting an Obama fundraiser at the St. Regis Hotel.”

I really do understand the fact that the President does not appreciate protestors.  He has not shown a gracious attitude to anyone who disagrees with him on anything, but peaceful protest is legal in America and reporting that protest is part of the media’s job.

However, the story does not end here.  Neither Press Secretary Jay Carney or anyone at the White House will speak on the record about the banishment of Ms. Marinucci.  Chronicle Editor Ward Bushee reported that people in the White House communications office told him that if the newspaper reported the banishment of Ms. Marinucci, there would be retaliation against Chronicle and Hearst reporters.  Later they recanted and said that the reporter might not be removed after all.

Please follow one of the links above to watch the protest video.  The protestors were singing, “We paid our dues, where’s our change.”  I suspect there are a lot of people currently feeling that way.

An Interesting Turn Of Events

Yesterday’s Washington Post reported that some Democrats may not support President Obama in his efforts to raise the debt ceiling.  Some have joined Republicans in requiring that deficit cuts be attached to any bill to raise the debt ceiling.

The article cites a few examples:

“The push-back has come in recent days from Sens. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), a freshman who is running for reelection next year. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) told constituents during the Easter recess that he would not vote to lift the debt limit without a “real and meaningful commitment to debt reduction.”

“Even Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), generally a stalwart White House ally, is undecided on the issue and is “hopeful” that a debt-ceiling bill can be attached to a measure to cut the federal deficit, said her spokesman, Linden Zakula. Klobuchar is also up for reelection next year.”

The fact that this is even being discussed is due to the existence of the Tea Party.  Regardless of how you feel about the group, they have totally changed the dialogue in Washington. 

The article further reports:

“On Thursday, White House spokeswoman Amy Brundage said legislative leaders in both parties “have been clear that the debt ceiling has to and will be raised to prevent another economic meltdown.” She added that there is also bipartisan agreement about reducing the deficit by trillions of dollars. “If members of Congress act responsibly and try to reach common ground, we can agree to significant deficit reduction without playing reckless politics with our economy,” she said.”

I would love to hear the White House’s definition of middle ground.

Would Someone Please Ask This Man To Leave The Stage

Hot Air reported that President Jimmy Carter has made a visit to North Korea.  He made a few interesting statements about his trip–accusing the United States of human rights violations.  Please follow the link to the article and watch the video–it is amazing that one man could be so naive.

The article reports:

“Kim (Jong-Il) wouldn’t meet with them, incidentally, for reasons I don’t understand. When you have a former U.S. president willing to carry your water, hand him a bucket. Instead, Kim sent them a message saying he’d be willing to meet with either South Korea or the U.S. to talk disarmament and any matters — like, say, food for the population, which may or may not be suffering an unusually harsh famine right now due to a bad winter. In theory, that would increase American leverage over Kim: The more desperately he needs food, the more willing he’ll be to make concessions to get it. But now that we’ve got this choice soundbite from an Absolute Moral Authority like Carter suggesting that other countries have a right to be fed by us without preconditions, well, who knows. Besides, after all the North has done for them lately, South Korea practically owes them, no?”

Does anyone remember why North Korea has a food shortage?  Does anyone remember the promises to use their nuclear program for peaceful purposes only?  I don’t doubt that the people in North Korea are starving.  I do wonder if the United States sent food to that country, if the average citizen would ever see it.  North Korea has become a major exporter of nuclear technology and nuclear equipment–not necessarily used for peaceful purposes.  If they choose to export those things, shouldn’t the countries they are exporting them to supply them with food in exchange?  Why in the world should we feed an army that is planning to destroy us?

I’m Giving Up Superman

I grew up watching Superman on television.  (He was in black and white then.)  He stood for truth, justice and the American way.  Comics Alliance reported yesterday:

“…Superman announces that he is going to give up his U.S. citizenship. Dispite very literaly being an alien immigrant.  Superman has long been seen as a patriotic symbol of “truth, justice, and the American way,” from his embrace of traditional American ideals to the iconic red and blue and his constume.  What it means to stand for the “American way” is an increasingly complicated thing, however, both in the real world and in superhero comics, whose storylines have increasingly seemed to mirror current events and deal with moral and political complexities rather than simple black and white morality.”

Why am I concerned about a comic book character who runs inside telephone booths and runs around in tights?  Because our children and grandchildren read those comic books.  We grew up knowing that the American way was something special.  What are we teaching our children (through indoctrination with comic books) about the American way? 

Follow the link above to see the cartoon frame showing Superman explaining that he was going to speak before the United Nations and renounce his American citizenship.  This is truly a sad moment for America.

The Problem With The Internet

The problem with the internet for politicians is that anyone with half a brain and a working computer can look up all the statements made by that politician and see where there are contradictions.  It’s not easy to be in politics in the age of the internet.

President Obama has tripped over his tongue with his recent comments on rising gasoline prices in America.  Power Line reported yesterday on the recent contradiction. 

The article reports on the President’s asking world oil producers to increase their output:

“They need to increase supplies,” Obama told CBS affiliate WTKR in Hampton Roads, Virginia. “We are in a lot of conversations with major oil producers like Saudi Arabia.”

This is a truly amazing statement by President Obama.  I agree with the essence of the statement–increased production will help lower cost–it’s his actions in domestic policy that contradict that statement that I don’t agree with.

The article reminds us:

“President Obama named Steven Chu his Secretary of Energy just three months after Chu told the Wall Street Journal in a high-profile interview that “Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” Presumably Obama put Chu in charge of energy policy because he shared Chu’s goal of driving American gas prices far above their then-current level. The policies that Obama, Chu and Obama’s EPA have subsequently followed confirm that higher energy prices was their objective. Now, confronted with the political fallout from his policies and facing rejection at the polls in 2012, Obama is flailing helplessly to re-cast himself as an advocate for American consumers. But he still is not willing to do the one thing that is within his power and that will bring down energy costs: turn loose America’s vast energy resources for development.”

Increase supply lowers cost.  Now that the President has admitted this, it’s time he put that policy in practice domestically.

Mythbusters Comes To Gas Prices

I occasionally watch the television show “Mythbusters.”  It always reminds me that some of the things that I take for granted are right can easily be proved wrong.  Well, yesterday the Heritage Foundation posted an article entitled “Obama’s Top Six Gas Price Myths Busted.”

The article lists the myths:

1.  Speculators are to blame.

2.  Price gouging is to blame.

3.  The solution is alternative energy.

4.  The President wants lower gas prices.

5.  More biofuels will solve the problem.

6.  There is nothing President Obama can do about gas prices.

The article details why each myth is false.  I strongly suggest that you follow the link above and read the entire article.

In terms of what the President can do about gas prices, the article concludes:

“On April 6, President Obama told an audience, “I’m just going to be honest with you. There’s not much we can do next week or two weeks from now.” There is actually plenty President Obama can do immediately.

“He can start issuing drilling permits in the Gulf. Obama’s Department of Interior went nearly a year without issuing a new permit, to the point that a federal judge held them in contempt of court. Obama’s Energy Information Agency projects that these permitting delays are costing us 240,000 fewer barrels of oil a day, along with the billions of dollars in government revenue in royalties. A Louisiana State University study found that at least 19,000 jobs across the nation were destroyed just by the Obama drilling “permitorium.”

“He can stop the EPA from imposing costly new regulations on refiners. He can reverse the political EPA decision to stop Shell from tapping into 27 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic Ocean. Simply put, he can send a strong signal to the markets and oil cartels that the U.S. oil industry is back open for business.

“As Congressman Dan Boren (D-OK) recently said: “President Obama is completely uninformed about the oil and gas industry. The industry is not made up of just major companies. … For every CEO of a major company, there are literally thousands of blue collar jobs that are affected by his administration’s energy policy. It is a policy that is very inadequate and has left so many on the gulf coast unemployed. Americans are tired of empty rhetoric on both sides and want a real plan. If the President doesn’t want to stand up and be a leader, then his silence would be appreciated from people who are trying to find solutions.”


I believe the appropriate expression here is, “Lead, follow, or get out of the way!”

Okay. I Will Finally Deal With This Issue

After considerable cajoling from Donald Trump, President Obama released his long form birth certificate yesterday. 

Newsbusters.org reported today that Fox News had the least amount of coverage of the ‘birther’ story.  The numbers:

Fox News:  0.4 percent

MSNBC:  9.2 percent

CNN:  5 percent

Obviously Fox News was not driving the story.  What in the world is going on here?  Does the ‘birther’ story serve as a convenient distraction from the actually important issues of the day?  Does the ‘birther’ story prevent people from looking at the President’s actual actions and proposals?  What impact does the ‘birther’ story have on the President’s approval records?  If the story is getting more coverage on networks normally more favorable to the President, how does this help the President? 

A few personal comments here.  I really don’t care where the President was born.  If he was actually born in Kenya, he has perpetrated a fraud on the American people.  That is unfortunate, but it is not the first time (nor will it be the last) that a politician has perpetrated a fraud on the American people.  If he was born in Kenya, he should not be President, but I truly think that is a moot point.  I am more concerned with his actions than his birthplace.

That having been said, this discussion may take a while to go away.  Yesterday, The Smoking Gun posted their comments on the release of the birth certificate.

The article comments:

“This morning’s White House release of President Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate will, of course, do little to derail the “birther” movement, which will now analyze the document with the kind of verve previously directed toward those Texas Air National Guard memos faxed to CBS from that Kinko’s in Abilene.”

The article then lists a set of questions that will now be asked about the document.  In case you are interested, I have two–was African considered a race in 1961 or was it Negro and what was the legal name of Kenya, East Africa in 1961?  The questions will continue.  It’s time to get out the popcorn, but also to realize that this discussion is a serious distraction.

Things That Happen Under The Radar

Today I had the privilege of attending an information meeting on Councils on Aging around the State of Massachusetts.  I am part of the Board of my local Council on Aging and must admit that I didn’t totally understand the role or reponsibilities of a Council on Aging.  I learned a lot.

One of the most interesting things I learned was how the demographics of our society are rapidly changing.  Obviously, the baby boom began in 1946, and those babies are now turning 65 and retiring.  Today we have 22 elders for every 100 working people.  In 2030 we will have 35 elders for every 100 working people.  How will that impact our society?

In Massachusetts a Council on Aging (COA) is a department of municipal government.  In most communities COA’s are the only public service agency.  The basic mission of the COA is to link needs with resources.

One of things pointed out in the presentation was that people want to remain living in their own homes independently for as long as possible.  The services of the COA can help with that goal.  Some of the services the various COA’s offer are meals on wheels, transportation to the Senior Center, educational opportunities at the Senior Center, and help with issues senior citizens may face (for example, wading through the paperwork involved in Medicare and other benefits).

My purpose in writing this article is first to make people who are elderly or who are dealing with an elderly relative aware that there is a place in their town where they can get answers and various services.  Secondly it is to say how impressed I am with the number of people in Massachusetts who volunteer in some way to be part of the Council on Aging or help the Council on Aging provide services to local residents.  Almost everyone involved with the Council on Aging is a volunteer.  That is a wonderful and amazing fact.


Don’t They Teach Economics In College ?

There is a basic principle in economics called “The Law of Supply and Demand.”  Stated simply, it means that if you have a lot of something, the price will tend to go down, if you have a scarcity of something, the price will tend to go up.  A few examples–the cost of housing as the housing bubble broke and there was a glut of houses on the market, the cost of diamonds at any time, the cost of Super Bowl tickets.  You get the idea.  It’s a pretty logical principle and most people have a basic knowledge of the concept even if they don’t necessarily know the rule. 

On Monday Newsbusters.org reported that Chris Matthews, in responding to Tim Pawlenty’s statement that exploiting America’s energy resources would help lower the cost of energy in this country, stated, “Well, nobody thinks this country can drill its way out of high gas prices.”

That is an amazing statement.  Let’s look at some of the highlights of America’s energy program:

The last refinery built in the US was in Garyville, Louisiana, and it started up in 1976.

BigGovernment.com reported on February 3 of this year that the Obama Administration was blocking 103 Gulf drilling permits.

Drilling in the Bakken oil reserve in North Dakota has resulted in North Dakota’s  unemployment rate at 4.3% in December–more than five percentage points below the national level–and the state government projects a surplus for the current budget cycle.

Not only will drilling lower the cost of gasoline, it will lower unemployment and bring money into the country rather than sending it out of the country, often to countries that are not our friends.

This Can’t Happen Here

Last November I watched Massachusetts decide not to take part in the political unheaval that was taking place in elections around the country.  We had elected Scott Brown in January, but for whatever reason couldn’t quite send any other Republicans to Congress.  However, in the state House of Representatives and Senate, there were many close races and some losses for the Democrats.  The following story is the result of those statewide results.

Well, even though the voters chose not to participate in November’s earthquake on a national level, some of our state officials are paying attention to what is going on locally, in Wisconsin and in other places.  Michael Graham’s Blog, The Natural Truth, reported today that:

“Massachusetts taxpayers awoke to stunning news this morning. Around midnight, the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives voted to limit government union’s collective bargaining power over their health care benefits.

“In Massachusetts. As the stunned president of the local AFL-CIO said after the vote: “Massachusetts is not the place that takes collective bargaining away from public employees.””

This is a very interesting turn of events.  The legislation may not make it through the state Senate, but it is still amazing that it made it through the state House of Representatives. 

Michael Graham further points out:

“Massachusetts is a state where public-sector unions have power, use power and expect the politicians to do what they’re told. Here’s Robert J. Haynes, president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO: “These are the same Democrats that all these labor unions elected. The same Democrats who we contributed to in their campaigns. . . It’s a done deal for our relationship with the people inside that chamber.”

“If that sounds eerily like a mob boss who just found out one of his lieutenants isn’t obeying orders, you’re on the right track.”

The article also points out that Massachusetts has the second-highest per capita government debt in the US, plus one of the worst unfunded-pension problems.  The legislation passed late last night may have been passed more out of necessity than political philosophy.

Watch For The Lies About Obamacare

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by Betsy McCaughey about some recent statement’s made about Paul Ryan’s plan to cut the budget by changing Medicare for future recipients in order to ensure its survival.

The article reports:

“The Democratic Party is urging Americans to choose Medicare as we’ve always known it rather than a new plan by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that would enroll seniors in private health insurance beginning in 2022. This choice is a hoax: Medicare as we’ve always known it is already gone. It was eviscerated by President Obama’s health law. Yet if the president and the Democratic Party successfully bamboozle voters, they may win back independents and registered Democrats who voted for Republicans in 2010. The 2012 election could turn on this falsehood.”

This is a very important statement.  The election of 2012 may depend on whether or not senior citizens understand what Obamacare does to Medicare. 

One aspect of Obamacare is the rationing of healthcare under Medicare:

“The Ryan proposal also includes a $7,800 annual medical savings account to help low-income seniors with out-of-pocket costs. Amazingly, the CBO analysts exclude this $7,800 benefit from their calculations. Their warning about low-income seniors suffering is baseless.

“So what can retiring Americans count on in 2022 and after? The Obama health law leaves that up to an unelected board of presidential appointees called the Independent Payment Advisory Board, a cost-cutting panel.

“The board is a radical departure from Medicare as we’ve known it. Congress cedes nearly all control of Medicare spending to the board on the rationale that budgeting decisions should be shielded from outraged seniors and political pressures. On April 13, the president reiterated that the board would decide what care is “unnecessary” for seniors. Even the CBO cautioned that as the nation’s debt crisis worsens, benefits will be put on the board’s chopping block.”

An article posted at Big Government on Monday states:

Under his deficit reduction plan, the President proposes to expand the power of this unelected entity to increase the GDP growth per capita cut from the current 1% to 5%. In addition, under his proposal Medicaid payments to states would also be tightly controlled and access to drugs would be limited through spending on prescription drugs.

There are two things that make this proposal doomed to fail if the goal is to decrease health costs while providing quality care:

  1. It does nothing to change the exemptions that were given to the hospitals, and other Medicare providers that make up a majority of Medicare spending thereby protecting them from the reach of the IPAB.
  2. It will further decrease the already below market rate of Medicare reimbursements to doctors making it even more difficult to provide both quality care for the Medicare patient and to keep their practices open.

If Senior Citizens are paying attention, they will elect congressmen and a president who support Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare.  Anything else will eventually deny them the quality of care that senior citizens have had in this country.

Terrorism In America

Yesterday Fox News reported that an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) was found on the southbound side of Highway 77 on Sunday.

KRGV.com reported:

“The improvised explosive device or I-E-D was disarmed by a bomb squad using a robot. No one was hurt. Parts of Highway 77 were closed for several hours.

“Police are continuing to investigate.”

Hopefully they will find the guilty party quickly.

Another Example Of America’s Failed Energy Policy

Yesterday Fox News reported that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Environmental Appeals Board has decide to withhold critical permits to Shell Oil Company in the company’s efforts to drill off the north coast of Alaska.  As a result of this move, Shell has been forced to abandon its plan to drill in Alaska.

The article reports:

“Shell has spent five years and nearly $4 billion dollars on plans to explore for oil in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. The leases alone cost $2.2 billion. Shell Vice President Pete Slaiby says obtaining similar air permits for a drilling operation in the Gulf of Mexico would take about 45 days. He’s especially frustrated over the appeal board’s suggestion that the Arctic drill would somehow be hazardous for the people who live in the area. “We think the issues were really not major,” Slaiby said, “and clearly not impactful for the communities we work in.””

The article explains that the nearest village is about seventy miles away from the drill site and has a population of 245 people. 

The article reports:

“The EPA’s appeals board ruled that Shell had not taken into consideration emissions from an ice-breaking vessel when calculating overall greenhouse gas emissions from the project. Environmental groups were thrilled by the ruling.”

When elections come in 2012, we need to remember why gasoline prices are rising out of control.  This sort of ruling from the EPA is not the only cause, but America could return to prosperity fairly quickly by developing its domestic energy resources.  The current recession is partially the result of government energy policies, government fiscal policies, and crony capitalism which begins in the White House.  It’s time to unelect anyone who has been part of the cause of this recession.  Anyone who supports this sort of EPA ruling should be among the first to go.

What Happened To The First Amendment ?

One of the foundations of our nation is the First Amendment, which allows free speech, protest, etc.  In court decisions, burning the United States flag has been seen as a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.  I don’t agree with this, but it is a right which has been upheld.  Meanwhile, I guess Detriot didn’t read the Constitution too carefully.

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported that Terry Jones was refused a permit to protest outside an Islamic Center.  The city was afraid that his protest would stir up some radical Muslim at the center and violence would follow. 

The article reports:

“So they put him on trial, with the jury asked to determine what they thought his intent would be in holding the protest. If they thought his aim was peaceful, he’d be found not guilty; if they thought he meant to incite violence, then guilty as charged. Verdict: Guilty. Which means not only was this guy convicted of a speech crime he hadn’t yet committed (a.k.a. prior restraint), but it was only a crime in the first place because of the expected reaction from his opponents. In other words, it’s a de facto codification of the heckler’s veto.”

This is disturbing.  The article further points out:

“It’s the heckler’s veto, in other words. If you say something that’s so offensive to someone that, gosh darn it, they just can’t help but be violent in response, you can go to prison for it. Again, though: Typically you have to say something before you can be charged. Jones didn’t get a chance here, thanks to the state’s utter panic in shutting him down before one of the locals could run amok in outrage at whatever he had planned.”

I am not a big fan of Pastor Jones.  However, he has the right to protest anywhere he wants to.  If the fear is that there will be violence on the part of the people he is protesting, those people are the problem–he is not.  If they become violent, they should be arrested and dealt with.  This is an example of not being able to say anything against Islam for fear of violence.  Prohibition of any speech critical of Islam is part of Sharia Law.  That prohibition should not be allowed in America..

The Problem Isn’t The Oil Companies

This is a quote from President Obama’s weekly address on Saturday:

“Now, whenever gas prices shoot up, like clockwork, you see politicians racing to the cameras, waving three-point plans for two dollar gas.  You see people trying to grab headlines or score a few points.  The truth is, there’s no silver bullet that can bring down gas prices right away.

“But there are a few things we can do.  This includes safe and responsible production of oil at home, which we are pursuing.  In fact, last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003.  On Thursday, my Attorney General also launched a task force with just one job: rooting out cases of fraud or manipulation in the oil markets that might affect gas prices, including any illegal activity by traders and speculators.  We’re going to make sure that no one is taking advantage of the American people for their own short-term gain.  And another step we need to take is to finally end the $4 billion in taxpayer subsidies we give to the oil and gas companies each year.  That’s $4 billion of your money going to these companies when they’re making record profits and you’re paying near record prices at the pump.  It has to stop.”

Note the comment that the Attorney General is launching a task force to root out fraud and manipulation of the oil markets so that they can find the true cause of rising prices.  Mr. President, I can save you some money.

Today the American Thinker posted an article explaining one reason why gasoline prices have gone through the roof. 

The article makes a number of good points:

“I’m also going to ignore the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf and general opposition to domestic exploration and production of petroleum by this Administration.

“No, the main culprit here isn’t the nameless, faceless “speculators” that are now the object of the President’s scorn, but government policy itself, both with the Federal Reserve (monetary) and the budget deficits accrued in recent years (fiscal).  What is going on is that the government is trying to deflect blame to these nameless, faceless speculators for their own disastrous fiscal and monetary policies.”


“This spendthrift, loose (and reckless) policy is also reflected in the price of gold and silver, which are historical safe harbors from inflation because (as precious metals) they store value and are never worthless.  Gold as of this writing was over $1,500/oz, silver over $46/oz.  Gold at the beginning of the Obama Administration was just over $850/oz, silver at under $11.50/oz.  Just this month, the price of silver skyrocketed from $40/oz to $45/oz in only 12 days.  The loss of confidence in the dollar has been striking.”

This is another example of the sleight of hand this administration is so good at–if you believe the oil companies are manipulating the price, you won’t look at how the administration’s policies have impacted the cost of gasoline.

What Is Charity ?

On Saturday, Andrew McCarthy reported at National Review:

“In the United States, rules on charitable giving  have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation,” President Obama claimed during his 2009 Cairo speech. “That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.””

That’s a really amazing statement.  The only restriction on charitable giving in America is that Americans are not allowed to give money to organizations that support terrorism. 

Mr. McCarthy points out that the statement that Muslims are restricted in their giving is one of two lies in the statement.  He then points out:

“The other falsehood was more subtle: the president’s suggestion that the religious obligation of zakat — one of the “five pillars of Islam” — is the equivalent of “charitable giving.” It is not. Zakat is every Muslim’s obligation to contribute to the fortification of the ummah, the notional worldwide Islamic nation. And that very much includes the funding of violent jihad against non-Muslims.”

That is obviously the root of the complaint, but why is President Obama complaining that Muslims can’t support terrorism?  Does he understand what he is saying?  When Christians give money to Christian organizations as part of their religion, it is understood that the money goes to relief efforts, spreading the Gospel, etc.  There is not a military aspect of modern Christianity.

Mr. McCarthy points out that after the earthquake in Haiti, Americans supplied 44 percent of the world’s relief efforts.  Muslims accounted for 0.1 percent of the total donations committed by governments.  So where are their ‘charitable’ donations going?  They are being used to support jihad–not to help people in need. 

The article points out:

“Muslims are taught that charity means Muslims aiding Muslims, for the purpose of fortifying and extending the ummah until all the world is Islam’s domain. “Of their wealth, take alms,” instructs Allah in the Koran (9:103), “that so thou mightest purify and sanctify them.” Thus, zakat may be given only to Muslims.”

We need to remember as we hear the President or others make statements about the limits on Muslim’s dontations to charity that we are dealing with a different concept of charity.  Whether or not the President is aware of this, I don’t know, but I hope someone informs him quickly if he is unaware.


Rewriting History

On Friday, the American Thinker posted an article entitled, “The ‘1967 border’–the lie that won’t die.” 

The article was written in response to the recent articles in the mainstream media as Palestine increases its efforts to become a state without dealing with the issue of peace with Israel.

The article reports:

“Both the New York Times and the Washington Post, in their April 22 editions, report that a group of prominent Israeli leftist intellectuals demonstrated in Tel Aviv in support of a Palestinian state based on the “1967 borders.””

There are a few problems with this idea.  There is no 1967 border–there is only an armistice line created after all of Israel’s neighbors invaded her as soon as she became a nation.  The 1949 armistice line was never internationally recognized as a border. 

The article in the American Thinker points out what happened when Arabs controlled the holy sites of the three major religions of the world:

“Compounding this lie, the Times and the Post also erase from actual history the fact that during Jordan’s illegal 1949-67 occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including the entire Old City of Jerusalem, Jews were barred from Judaism’s holiest sites — the Western Wall, Temple Mount and Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs.   A return to the 1967 line would deal Jews a similar fate. 

“The truth, so lacking in the Times and the Post, is that Israel still awaits an eastern “border” that can and will be fixed only as part of a final resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict , as mandated by the UN Security Council in Resolution 242.  In the meantime, history and Arab aggression  have  swept away the 1949 armistice line and, notwithstanding the lie perpetuated by the Times’ Isabel Kershner and the Post’s Joel Greenberg, a “border” still remains an elusive quest that has yet to reach its  final destination.”

This is not an acceptable situation.  The thing we need to remember is that the land Israel currently occupies is a small fraction of the land it was promised when the nation was created.

This is a map of the original British Mandate for Israel:

Palestine was the name given to Israel at that time.  Transjordan was originally to be given to the Jewish state, but Britain reneged on its promise and gave the land to the Arabs instead.  In 1921, the Arab representative responsible for the above division of the land, Emir Feisal, agreed to abandon all claim of his father to Western Palelstine if he secured Iraq and Eastern Palestine as Arab terrorities.  These are the borders set up for the nation of Israel.  The 1949 borders were simply an armistice.

In Order To Have Peace You Have To Either Take Power From The Troublemakers Or Eliminate Them

Somehow our society in general has lost the idea that you put antisocial killers in jail so that they cannot continue in their crimes.  It seems that in recent years we have a tendency to put them in charge of countries and give them money.  This does not promote peace.

Arutz Sheva reported over the weekend that Palestinian Arabs shot at a number of Jewish worshippers at Kever Yosef (Joseph’s Tomb) near Shechem.  Several hours later they set fire to the tomb. 

Power Line added further details yesterday:

“Today it was the PA police forces themselves that did the shooting, murdering one Israeli and wounding four others who had gone to pray at Joseph’s tomb on the morning before the last day of Passover. The one murder victim (so far) has been identified as 24-year-old Ben Yosef Livnat, a nephew of Likud Minister Limor Livnat and the father of four children, so the celebrations in the territory controlled by the PA must be grand indeed. Palestinian Arabs proceeded to desecrate Joseph’s tomb and attack Livnat’s funeral procession. I should add that in Haaretz, one spokesman for the Israelis on the West Bank makes the point linking PA incitement with the Fogel murders in connection with toda’s events.

Arutz Sheva adds this piquant detail. The PA police forces continued to fire at the cars of the Jews observing Passover as they fled from the site. Were the Palestinian security forces among those trained by General Dayton and the United States? Perhaps some American reporter will care to ferret out the facts.”

Meanwhile, America continues to send money to Palestine, and Palestine moves forward on its plan to declare statehood through the United Nations in September.  Unless someone wakes up quickly, we are on our way to creating another terrorist state–only this time the United Nations (with the cooperation of the United States) will be the organization that created it!

What Happens If We Don’t Raise The Debt Ceiling

Andrew McCarthy posted an article yesterday at National Review about the question of raising the debt ceiling.  Mr. McCarthy cites an article posted by Senator Pat Toomey at Real Clear Politics yesterday. 

Senator Toomey states:

“On last Sunday morning’s talk shows, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner once again implied that, if the debt limit is not promptly raised, the United States will default on its debt and the resulting catastrophe will be the fault of congressional Republicans.

“But Secretary Geithner knows that congressional delay in raising the debt limit will in no way cause a default on our national debt. If Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling, the federal government will still have more than enough money to fully service our debt. Next year, about 7 percent of all projected federal government expenditures will go to interest on our debt. Tax revenue is projected to cover at least 70 percent of all government expenditures. So, under any circumstances, there will be plenty of money to pay our creditors.”

Last month an op-ed in the Washington Times reported:

“While it is true Congress has never before refused to raise the debt ceiling, it has frequently taken its sweet time to do so. In 1985, Congress waited nearly three months after the debt limit was reached before authorizing a permanent increase. In 1995, 4 1/2 months passed between hitting the ceiling and congressional action. And in 2002, Congress delayed raising the debt ceiling for three months. In each case, the U.S. and the economy survived.”

The Washington Times further reports:

“[F]ederal revenues will reach $2.17 trillion this fiscal year. Interest payments on the nation’s debt are estimated to be $205 billion this year, or about 10 percent of revenues. Taking that payment off the top, as Mr. Toomey’s plan would, leaves $1.9 trillion for Congress to spend. That’s enough to pay for Social Security ($741 billion), Medicare ($488 billion), and Medicaid ($276 billion), with $395 billion left for other programs.”

That would be the fiscally responsible way to deal with the situation. 

Mr. McCarthy concludes:

“The people running this government are never going to deal with this untenable situation unless and until it becomes untenable for them. The only way that will happen is if Congress refuses to raise the debt ceiling and forces the administration to prioritize payment of those obligations that must be paid to maintain our full faith and credit — for as Kevin and Veronique point out, this already perilous situation could be blown sky high if the interest rate we must pay to borrow spikes. Only when there is no way around it will we get serious consideration of what government should and should not do, and what kind of welfare state the public is willing to pay for.

“If we put it off, if we expand the credit card of a bankrupt Washington whose credit card needs to be cut to pieces right now, not only will our dire straits get worse. We won’t get to deal with them — we will be at the mercy of how they deal with us when the music finally stops.” 

The Republicans in Congress need to have the backbone to stop the President from raising the debt ceiling.  I don’t know if that is what will actually happen.  What I suspect will happen is that the White House will say that if the debt ceiling is not raised, the military will not be paid, Social Security will not be paid, etc.  There will be statements that the United States as we know it will be ‘over’ if the debt ceiling is not raised.  President Obama has already stated that when he voted against raising the debt ceiling as a Senator, he was only being political.  Now he is doing the right thing by asking that it be raised.  If anyone believes that, he ought to be stopped from voting!

We don’t need to raise the debt ceiling.  We don’t need to raise taxes.  We need to stop the spending.  If the current Republicans do not have the backbone to do that, then we need new Republicans.

Received In My Email Today

I received an email this morning talking about the 28th Amendment.  While the email had some really good ideas in it, snopes declared it “mostly false.”  I checked it, and it is partially false, but the idea behind it is valid.  Follow the link to snopes after you read this.

I reported on April 15th (rightwinggranny.com) that Jim DeMint an amendment to the U. S. Constitution that would limit the terms of Senators and Representatives in Congress.  That is true.  Unfortunately, the email had many other suggestions that might be good, but were not included in Senator DeMint’s article.

If you receive an email that starts off saying:

Congressional Reform Act of 2011
1. Term Limits.

12 years only, one of the possible options below..
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. …

Please go to snopes.com and read the commentary.  Term limits is a wonderful idea.  The rest of the email has some truth, but does not totally reflect the facts.

California Dreamin’ Has Become Texas Dreamin’

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article by John Fund on the migration that is currently taking place from California to Texas. 

Mr. Fund reports:

“It wasn’t your usual legislative hearing. A group of largely Republican California lawmakers and Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom traveled here last week to hear from businesses that have left their state to set up shop in Texas.

“”We came to learn why they would pick up their roots and move in order to grow their businesses,” says GOP Assemblyman Dan Logue, who organized the trip. “Why does Chief Executive magazine rate California the worst state for job and business growth and Texas the best state?””

When our government was founded, part of the idea of states was that the states would be laboratories for new ideas.  If an idea worked in a state, it might be carried to the federal level.  If an idea did not work in a state, it would die there, and the state would abandon it as a failure.  That’s a great concept that has not neccessarily worked perfectly.  I live in Massachusetts.  Unfortunately our state medical reform (which has dramatically increased the cost of health insurance and not done much else) was the model for Obamacare.  The tax and spend policies that have failed in many states unfortunately invaded the federal government a long time ago.  It seems as if the idea of states as laboratories is a good concept, but we are copying the unsuccessful and ignoring the successful.  Anyway, back to California and Texas.

The article cites one example of why businesses are moving from California to Texas:

“Andy Puzder, the CEO of Hardee’s Restaurants, was one of many witnesses to bemoan California’s hostile regulatory climate. He said it takes six months to two years to secure permits to build a new Carl’s Jr. restaurant in the Golden State, versus the six weeks it takes in Texas. California is also one of only three states that demands overtime pay after an eight-hour day, rather than after a 40-hour week. Such rules wreak havoc on flexible work schedules based on actual need. If there’s a line out the door at a Carl’s Jr. while employees are seen resting, it’s because they aren’t allowed to help: Break time is mandatory.”

Mr. Fund concludes:

“But if California continues its economic decline, something Texas-sized in its ambitions may be called for– whether it’s a moratorium on new business regulations or a restructuring of the state’s dysfunctional unemployment compensation or litigation. Nothing less is likely to stem the outflow of businesses and jobs from the Golden State.”

California is an amazing state.  It has climates and scenery to please every taste.  It has culture and open spaces.  It is a wonderful place.  I hope the people who run the state begin to look at what they can do to turn California into the paradise for people and businesses that it is capable of being.

An Interesting Idea For Afghanistan

In June of 2010, Michael Yon posted a story on his website about “Gobar Gas” which is used as a fuel source in Nepal. 

Mr. Yon tells the history of the idea:

“The insights of a Gurkha veteran named Lalit, whom I met in the jungles of Borneo, at a British Army man-tracking school, were particularly valuable. One day in the jungle Lalit began a conversation by announcing that many of Afghanistan’s household needs could be solved if Afghans would adopt “Gobar Gas” production. Gobar Gas could improve the lives of Afghans as it had that of the Nepalese, he said, as he began to explain with great enthusiasm.

“During Lalit’s time in Afghanistan, he found nobody who had heard of Gobar Gas–even though Gobar Gas has been a quiet engine of ground-level economic transformation in Nepal and numerous other poor Asian nations.”

Gobar Gas is a gas similar to methane that is made by ‘distilling’ various waste materials.

The article explains:

“”Gobar” is the Nepali word for cow dung. The “Gas” refers to biogas derived from the natural decay of dung, other waste products, and any biomass. In Nepal, villagers use buffalo, cow, human, and other waste products for biogas production. Pig and chicken dung are used in some places, as are raw kitchen wastes, including rotted vegetation.

“Gobar is typically mixed with a roughly equal amount of water, and gravity-fed through a pipe into an airtight underground “digester,” where naturally occurring bacteria feast on the mixture. This anaerobic process produces small but precious amounts of gas. That gas can be fed directly into a heat source, such as a cooking stove, and used to fuel it.”

Gobar gas is 50-70% methane by volume, similar to natural gas, and a convenient source of clean energy.  The article further explains:

“After bacteria digest the dung, the by-product is a rich organic fertilizer, sometimes called slurry, or bioslurry. That fertilizer is more effective than raw dung, with important benefits for hands-on farmers. For instance, it doesn’t smell bad, and almost all the pathogens and weed seeds have been destroyed.”

Please follow the link above to read the entire article.  I am not sure how much of this is practical for the United States (we don’t have a lot of animals in most communities that produce cow dung), but it is an amazing concept.  It would be nice to see this form of energy come to Afghanistan.  Not only is the energy clean, it’s by-product is clean and useful.  What a great idea.

A Clue To Who Is Currently In Control In Egypt

Yesterday Yahoo News posted an Associated Press story from Cairo stating that hundreds of Islamists have staged a protest in front of the U. S. Embassy in Cairo demanding that the U. S. release Omar Abdel Rahman, also known as the blind sheik.  The blind sheik is currently in prison for life because of his role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.  He was also convicted of an advisory role in conspiracies to blow up the United Nations and several New York bridges and tunnels.

The article reports:

“The protest leader was Abboud el-Zomor, who was released from an Egyptian prison in March after serving multiple sentences for his role in the assassination of former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.”

Anwar Sadat was killed by the Muslim Brotherhood because he was seen as getting too cozy with Israel.  Unfortunately, the Muslim Brotherhood has now gained the power in Egypt that they were not able to gain at that time.  Hosni Mubarak outlawed the Muslim Brotherhood during the time he controlled Egypt.  Since the ouster of Mubarak, the Brotherhood has begun to consolidate its control of the country.  We need to keep in mind that the ultimate goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is the worldwide caliphate.  They are patient and they are willing to use peaceful means to attain that goal, but don’t forget, that is their goal.  Unless we want Sharia Law to come to America, we need to oppose the Muslim Brotherhood anywhere we can.

The Dangers Of Payback When Unions Make Large Political Contributions

Yesterday’s Washington Examiner posted a story about the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) attempt to control where Boeing builds the assembly line for the new 787 airplane.  Lafe Solomon, who was appointed to the board by President Obama, filed a complaint Wednesday on behalf of the NLRB to force Boeing to build the assembly line in Washington state rather than South Carolina.  South Carolina is a right-to-work state, where workers would not have to be unionized. 

The article points out that Boeing had originally planned to build the plant in Washington state, but the International Association of Machinists (IAM) refused to sign a contract with a long-term no-strike clause.  Since 1989, strikes by the IAM have cost Boeing at least $1.8 billion in revenue.

The article points out:

“Construction of Boeing’s new Charleston factory is nearly complete, and the company has already hired more than 1,000 new employees, drawn mostly from within the immediate region. And back in Washington, Boeing has actually increased employment at its Puget Sound plant by 2,000 workers. But that isn’t good enough for the IAM or the Obama White House. After suffering major defeats in Wisconsin and Ohio, the labor movement is looking for a scalp. Obama’s NLRB is trying to turn Boeing into one.”

This is what happens when the White House is in the pocket of the labor unions. 

The article further reports:

“A ruling in favor of Obama’s NLRB would make it presumptively illegal for any unionized firm to invest in a right-to-work state.

“At first, this would mainly hurt right-to-work states, as they would no longer be able to lure new businesses from existing unionized firms. But over the long run, this policy would hurt unions and all Americans. Why would any domestic company choose to build a factory in a forced-union state if it knew that meant it could never expand to a right-to-work state? Why would any international firm invest anywhere in this country if it knew the White House would favor political allies?

“The NLRB isn’t protecting workers, it is setting them up for eventual unemployment.”

Regardless of the outcome, the NLRB is making it very expensive to expand a company into a right-to-work state.  This is another way the Obama Administration and its appointees are creating unemployment and infringing upon people’s (and company’s) rights.