Today’s Worcester Telegram posted a story about two organizations calling for voters to voluntarily show identification when voting in the 6th Worcester District House race on April 12 and the general election on May 10.

The groups, Empower Massachusetts” and “Show ID to Vote,” are launching an “integrity of the vote” campaign. 

According to the article:

“”In Charlton,” Ms. Varley said, “they walk in with ballots in a cart with locked drawers. They are banded together. There’s a police officer with his weapon on bringing them in with the town clerk.

“”In Southbridge the next day, they’re brought in, in cracked, broken, taped-sealed, not even Rubbermaid, like Target knockoff boxes — where the ballots are just thrown in. They’re not wrapped in rubber bands. They’re not sorted in any way. Visually it was stunning.”

“Southbridge Town Clerk Madaline I. Daoust said the state doesn’t have standard ballot-handling practices, but she insisted armed Southbridge police officers brought ballot containers in.

“She conceded that one of the five bins was broken, but this was atypical.” 

In a world where you can’t buy a bottle of wine or a pack of cigarettes without showing some sort of picture identification, why in the world can you vote without proving who you are.  A fair, honest election is a necessary part of our form of government.  I hope the trend of showing id when you vote will catch on. 

This is the visual representation of what Paul Ryan’s budget proposal means.  The questions is whether we choose to continue on the path we are on and create massive federal debt or whether we decide to stop the spending now–before it is too late.  The chart is from a Wall Street Journal article written by Paul Ryan and posted today. 

Mr. Ryan states in his article:

“The president’s recent budget proposal would accelerate America’s descent into a debt crisis. It doubles debt held by the public by the end of his first term and triples it by 2021. It imposes $1.5 trillion in new taxes, with spending that never falls below 23% of the economy. His budget permanently enlarges the size of government. It offers no reforms to save government health and retirement programs, and no leadership.

“Our budget, which we call The Path to Prosperity, is very different. For starters, it cuts $6.2 trillion in spending from the president’s budget over the next 10 years, reduces the debt as a percentage of the economy, and puts the nation on a path to actually pay off our national debt. Our proposal brings federal spending to below 20% of gross domestic product (GDP), consistent with the postwar average, and reduces deficits by $4.4 trillion.”

As the private sector has grown smaller in the recession, the government sector has grown larger, with salaries at about 140 percent of those in the private sector.  Until we stop that trend, the nation will not return to prosperity.

One of the more interesting ideas in Paul Ryan’s budget is to bring Medicare under the same sort of program used for Congress.  It is a private program with government subsidies, but not directly funded by the government.  Because it is a private program, it runs more efficiently and costs less.  The plan also includes proposals for tax reform–making the tax code less complicated and lowering overall tax rates.  Both of these ideas would be wonderful if put into practice, the question is whether or not they will be stopped by lobbyists and special interest groups in Washington.  The time of catering to lobbyists and special interests is over–we can’t affort it anymore.  The suggestions in this budget proposal would be a good first step in bringing the country back to prosperity and back to the economic principles it was founded on.  The budget Mr. Ryan has proposed needs to move forward.

This picture is from Power Line.  It is a Michael Ramirez cartoon, click here for a larger version.

The bottom line here is simple.  The Republicans are asking for a 1.59% budget cut and the Democrats are asking for .86%.  That is what all the ruckus is about–less than 1 percent of the total budget.  Good grief!

Everyone makes mistakes.  The question becomes what you do about them when you discover them.  The fallout from a recent mistake may be very telling.

On Friday, Richard Goldstone posted an editorial in the Washington Post about the Goldstone Report.  The report was issued at the request of the UN after a fact finding study of the war between Israel and Gaza after numerous rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza. 

Mr. Goldstone points out that his report found evidence of potential war crimes and possible crimes against humanity.  He states that the crimes committed by Hamas were intentional–their rockets were aimed indiscriminately at civilian targets.

The article reports:

“The allegations of intentionality by Israel were based on the deaths of and injuries to civilians in situations where our fact-finding mission had no evidence on which to draw any other reasonable conclusion. While the investigations published by the Israeli military and recognized in the U.N. committee’s report have established the validity of some incidents that we investigated in cases involving individual soldiers, they also indicate that civilians were not intentionally targeted as a matter of policy.”

Mr. Goldstone further states:

“As I indicated from the very beginning, I would have welcomed Israel’s cooperation. The purpose of the Goldstone Report was never to prove a foregone conclusion against Israel. I insisted on changing the original mandate adopted by the Human Rights Council, which was skewed against Israel. I have always been clear that Israel, like any other sovereign nation, has the right and obligation to defend itself and its citizens against attacks from abroad and within. Something that has not been recognized often enough is the fact that our report marked the first time illegal acts of terrorism from Hamas were being investigated and condemned by the United Nations. I had hoped that our inquiry into all aspects of the Gaza conflict would begin a new era of evenhandedness at the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose history of bias against Israel cannot be doubted.”

The bottom line here is very simple.  Israel went into Gaza to stop the firing of rockets on civilian populations.  Hamas used civilians as human shields, which they have historically done, and innocent people were killed.  The UN Human Rights Council is not populated by free democracies–a few of its members are China, Russia, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, and Uganda.  Libya is currently suspended from the Council.

Until the UN decides to include the rockets fired at Israel’s civilian population on a regular basis in its investigations, there is no way their findings will be valid.  The UN stated as its original goals the promotion of international law and international security, the promotion of economic development, social progress, human rights, and world peace.  It has instead become a forum for some of the nastiest tyrants in the world to achieve legitimacy.  It is time for the United Nations to pack their bags and go home.

On Friday, the Wall Street Journal posted the following statistic:

“Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government.”

This becomes an even more interesting statistic when you add in the fact that government workers are twice as likely to be unionized than private sector workers.  What this means is that a large part of the money flowing into unions is from the taxpayers that pay the salaries of government workers.

The article points out:

“…Don’t expect a reversal of this trend anytime soon. Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren’t willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.”

If we intend to grow the American economy we need to go back to being a nation of people who work for or start private companies, not a nation of civil servants.

AN EVENING WITH ANDY McCARTHY

“The Grand Jihad”

April 11^th at

7:30 PM

Ahavath Torah Congregation

1179 Central Street

Stoughton, MA 02072

Admission: $10

This is a chart from a Wall Street Journal article posted today.  It is based on numbers from the Office of Management and Budget and shows government spending as a percentage of America’s gross domestic product.  Today the Republicans will be introducing a budget that cust spending by $4 trillion dollars in order to curb the growth of government. 

The article points out:

“Though Rep. Ryan based the Medicare portion of his budget on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat, Alice Rivlin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and long-time budget expert, the current plan isn’t likely to get much Democratic support. Instead, it will set up a broad debate over spending and the role of government heading into the 2012 general election.”

That is a very telling comment.  The Medicare plan is based on a previous plan created in collaboration with a Democrat and the Democrats will probably not support it.  Unfortunately this is another example of putting party politics ahead of the good of the country. 

The article concludes:

“Ms. Rivlin said in an interview Sunday she would have preferred a plan that phased in more quickly and left a traditional Medicare program as a default option for seniors. But overall she supported Mr. Ryan’s idea. “What Democrats have to realize is we have to do something,” Ms. Rivlin said. “Current policy on Medicare is not sustainable. You can worry about how you structure a premium support program, but I think it’s a good way to think about the future of Medicare.””

We cannot continue to spend at the rate we are currently spending.  I hope we avoid a government shutdown, but I don’t think we can continue on the path we are going.  It was interesting that the Democrat talking points were revealed last week.  Expect to hear the word “extreme” thrown around a lot, and expect to see very little movement on the Democrat side–the Democrats believe they will gain if the government shuts down.

Today’s Jerusalem Post posted a story about Denis Avery, a British soldier captured in World War II, who swapped uniforms with a Dutch Jew in order to sneak into Auschwitz to see first-hand what was happening inside. 

The article reports:

“After weeks of preparation, including bribes to a guard, Avey twice swapped uniforms with a Dutch Jew of roughly the same height to sneak into the camp where he spent the night.

“On both occasions the men managed to change back into their own clothes, despite the risk of discovery and certain death.

“”I did my homework over weeks and weeks, but the common denominator of all that was a tremendous amount of luck,” Avey said in an interview to promote his biography “The Man Who Broke Into Auschwitz”, co-written by Rob Broomby and published in Britain by Hodder & Stoughton.”

Mr. Avery has finally told his story in his biography. 

The article further states:

“Despite its dark content, the story ends on a note of hope.

“Avey recently discovered that a Jew called Ernst survived Auschwitz and recorded his testimony on video.

“In that testimony he talked about a soldier — Avey — who arranged for him to get 10 packs of cigarettes from England which he swapped for food and new soles on his shoes without which he said he would not have survived the death march.

“”I thought he was dead,” said Avey. “I couldn’t believe it.””

The source of this article is a story on a website called Fleming and Hayes posted on April 3rd.  The Secure Communities Program is a federal programs which requires anyone arrested for a crime to have their fingerprints sent to ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement).  Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has been holding hearings around the state that are supposed to be forums for discussing the implementation of the program. 

Generally speaking, the forums have not been well publicized and special interest groups that oppose the measure have been the ones showing up.  Some members of the Massachusetts Tea Party attended today’s meeting in Lawrence.

The article reports some of what went on in today’s meeting in Lawrence:

“Commissioner Curtis Wood of the Department of Criminal Justice Information Services (DCJIS) opened the meeting with an overview of what the Secure Communities program means, and then made an outrageous claim that misrepresented the Arizona illegal immigration law. He was summarily called on that during the commentary part of the meeting. Secretary Mary Heffernan of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) took most of the questions from the audience and could hardly answer anything. All she said was “I can’t answer that”, or “I don’t know, what a good question”, or “that’s why we are having these meetings, ie, to get this input from you”. It’s all an effort to stall. All this is for them is media attention to convey the desired image that Secure Communities is flawed and should not be implemented. Their goal was a discussion of why this should not be done. Her excuse was the state really doesn’t understand this program and needs more time to get input from people in communities. They just want to drag this out. She said they want to be very careful and not rush into anything. She was just unbelievable. Secretary Heffernan was asked again as she was asked in the last meeting in Framingham if she invited anyone from ICE, and she said No, but that she will. She said that last time. ICE will not come unless invited. Heffernan and others were maligning ICE in commentary, and ICE should be there to set the record straight. I talked to tea party leaders, and steps will be taken to ensure this invitation is extended to ICE by Heffernan’s office.”

I have no idea why these people do not want criminals fingerprinted to check to see if they are here legally.  It seems as if common sense would dictate protecting our borders during a time of international terrorism.  Please follow the above link to the article to read about the further problems with the forum. 

The next meeting of the Secure Communities forum is in Waltham on April 16th.

CNN posted a beautiful story today about a Japanese fisherman who decided to ride out the tsumani that hit Japan.  When the tsumani came, Susumu Sugawara took his boat “Sunflower” to ride out the wave. 

“I knew if I didn’t save my boat, my island would be isolated and in trouble,” he tells CNN.

He said that he rode out four or five huge waves before the sea became calm and he knew he had passed the tsumani.  He then pumped the water out of his boat and returned to his island to search for his family. 

The article reports:

“For twenty days, he has been making hourly trips to the mainland. For the first two weeks at least he provided almost the only connection with it. Without Sugawara and the Sunflower, the island would have been completely cut off.

“He doesn’t ask passengers for money if they have none. Those that can, pay just 300 yen (US$3.5) towards fuel.

“Oshima is an island of just 3,500 people. Locals say 35 of them are confirmed dead and some are still missing, though they don’t know how many. Others are believed to have taken their boats out to sea and tried to ride the tsunami like Sugawara but didn’t make it.”

The people on the island have worked together to get food and to help each other recover from the tsumani.  Mr. Sugawara not only risked his life to save his island, he continues to help the recovery effort every day.

Obviously that is not an original quote.  It does, however, apply to some recent events in Florida and in Afghanistan.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article today about Pastor Terry Jones, who burned a Koran in Florida.  An Afghan mob then attacked and killed some United Nations workers saying that it was because Pastor Jones burned the Koran.

I’m not a big fan of Koran burning–I think it’s a  little dumb for many reasons.  It really doesn’t prove a point, and it just seems to provide an excuse for bad behavior.  However, I do not feel that murder is an appropriate response. 

Ed Morrissey points out:

“Interestingly, I had a conversation about this with a family member yesterday. While I agreed that Jones was a publicity hound looking for attention, that doesn’t make him responsible for murder. The only people responsible for murders are those who commit them, and those who specifically incite them to kill.  Any other position eventually wipes out free speech, free religious practice, and freedom altogether.  If we held others responsible for the acts of every nutcase whose violent reactions may or may not have connections to something they did or said, we would have no speech at all — a point we made repeatedly during the Left’s Loughner frenzy, which they conveniently forgot during the Madison protests.”

One aspect of Sharia Law, which Muslims institute in countries they control, is the severe limitation on free speech.  Criticizing Islam can have a death sentence attached to it.  That is not the way we run the government here.  Pastor Jones’ burning of the Koran may not have been smart or tactful, but under American law, he does have the right to do that.  The fact that murderous people would use that act as an excuse to kill innocent people says more about them than it does about Pastor Jones.  If we don’t learn to speak up now and exercise our right to free speech, we may well lose it.  The radical Muslims are a murderous group of people, but we cannot let that cause us to lose our right to free speech.

The Detroit News reported yesterday that the presidential limousine and some law enforcement vehicles will be exempt from the President’s directive that all federal vehicles purchased starting 2015 be advanced technology models.  How advanced is the technology if the President won’t use it in his limousine and his security vehicles?

The article goes on to explain why the President supports hybrids and why he can’t have a hybrid.  Evidently it has to do with the weight of the presidential limousine–the car is reinforced to withstand various nasty things that might happen to it.  That’s all very well, but this is my problem–a standard is being set, a rule is being made, and immediately someone in power does not have to abide by that rule.  There is one standard that is imposed on the ‘common man’ and another standard for the ‘uncommon man.’   There may be a logical reason to exempt the presidential limousine, but is there also a logical reason to require federal vehicles to be hybrids? 

The technology for electric cars is not perfect–there was an article at a website called The Car Electric about the impact of cold weather on electric cars.  Cold weather significantly impacts the distance the car can go on after charging the battery both because batteries are less efficient in cold weather and because of the drain on the battery caused by using the heater to keep the driver warm.  The electric car simply moves the source of power from oil to electricity.  The electricity still has to be generated and is much less efficient for powering a vehicle than the traditional gasoline.  Green cars may be in our future, but I am not sure they will be electric.

My final question on this requirement for ‘green cars’ in the government is simple, “If green cars are such a great idea, why are we waiting until 2015–well after the 2012 elections?”

We seem to be at war in Libya.  The news tells us that we are no longer providing air support, but various news sources are reporting that we now have Marine boots on the gound there (google “Marines in Libya” for further details).  But how did we get there?  Should we be there?  I honestly don’t have the answer to the second question.  I have the opinion that a new government may not be our friend, even if we help establish it, but I really don’t know.  But I think the question of how we got there is interesting.

According to a press release put out by Senator John Ensign:

“…While Secretary Clinton has continued to refer to S. Res. 85 as a Senate endorsement of the President’s establishment of a no-fly zone, I’d like to point out to the American people that this talking point is very misleading.

 

“Senate Resolution 85 received the same amount of consideration as a bill to rename a post office; it was ‘hotlined’ and there was no debate allowed on this issue and no legislative language provided to consider.  There was no vote.

 

“S. Res. 85 described a no-fly zone as a “possible” course of action for the U.N. Security Council’s consideration.  It did not instruct the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to take action, let alone authorize a military operation.

 

“Using the hotline process for S. Res. 85 as a congressional endorsement for the President’s policy is simply not an adequate use of Congress’ role in authorizing military action.

 

“The Administration unilaterally developed, planned and executed its no-fly zone policy. President Obama consulted the UN, NATO and Arab League, but did not consult what is mandated under our laws and Constitution. There was no Congressional approval or oversight of this military commitment.

 

“S. Res. 85 simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force.  It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.

 

• That is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force.
• That is not the political equivalent of an authorization to use force.

 

“So what is S.Res. 85?  It is a disrespectful checking of the box by this Administration for congressional approval of its unilateral military decision.”

 

Andrew McCarthy posted an article on Congress’ role in our involvement in Libya at The Corner at National Review Online.  This is not a casual adventure–it is a war.  People will get killed.  If Gadaffi stays in power, there will be a slaughter of those who opposed him so that he can remain in power.  At this stage of the game, the best thing we can do is send in a sniper.  There will be a short period of chaos that will follow the death of Gadaffi, but I think that action will save the maximum number of lives.

Y Net News posted a story on Wednesday stating that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon made a speech saying that the ‘occupation’ of Palestine by Israel must end.  I don’t know whether Ban Ki-moon doesn’t know his history or just chooses to ignore it.

In the Balfour Declaration of 1919, Britain made a commitment to work toward the establishment of a Jewish homeland in the vast wasteland (at the time) designated as the Palestinian territory.  On January 4, 1919, a formal agreement was signed in London to bring the Jewish homeland into existence.  Signing the agreement were His Royal Highness the Emir Feisal ibn-Hussein, representing and acting on behalf of the Arab Kingdom of Hedjaz, and Chaim Weitzman, representing and acting on behalf of the Zionist Organization.  Later the League of Nations codified and approved the boundaries set up.  The nation of Israel that was formed at that time included what is now Jordan and all the land the Palestinians are currently claiming.  Later, 80 percent of the land given to Israel was taken from them to form the country of Transjordan, which was to be the Palestinian State.  That was part of a 1922 British Mandate.  The concept of another Palestinian State was born after the 1967 war, when Israel took back some of the land she had originally been promised.  As Walid Shoebat has said, “Why is it that on June 4th 1967, I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”  The push for a Palestinian state by the Arab nations is a smoke screen being used to reduce Israel to indefensible borders with hostile neighbors and reach their long term goal of driving Israel into the sea.  For the Arab states, the problem is not how large Israel is–it is that Israel is.

The UN has been very quick to criticize Israel for her settlements.  At the same time, the UN has been very reluctant to criticize the rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel.  That really tells you all you need to know.