Today’s Washington Examiner is quoting Representative Peter King of New York as saying, “(Former New York City Mayor Giuliani) is very close to saying he’s going to run” for president in 2012. 

The article points out that although Giuliani is a viable candidate, the issue that brought him to national attention, his actions during the 911 attacks, is almost 10 years old.  The issues have changed.  I’m not so sure.  As Mayor, Giuliani curbed crime, and did a lot to clean up the financial problems of New York City.  He is also recognized as strong on keeping Americans safe from terrorism.  I am not sure how important the terrorism issue is to many Americans, but I suspect Americans generally want to see a leader who will combat terrorism and prosecute terrorists.

I am a social and fiscal conservative, but there are aspects of a Giuliani campaign for president that I could easily support.

One of the things that the Republicans need to keep in mind for the 2012 presidential election is that President Obama is from Chicago and his campaign will be headquartered in Chicago.  I don’t mean to criticize Chicago–it is a totally fascinating city–but it is known for raising politics to the level of a blood sport.

Yesterday Breitbart.com reported on some of the recent activities of people loosely and closely involved in President Obama’s re-election campaign.  The current goal of the Obama campaign is to stir up division within the Republican party and to damage any candidate who looks like he might be a threat to President Obama’s re-election.  I should mention at this point that the Republicans seem to have enough trouble choosing a viable candidate–they don’t need any extra hurdles.  In the past, the Republicans simply gave the nomination to the oldest good guy running.  I think the Tea Party plans on changing that.

The article at Breitbart reports:

“A pro-Obama group called Priorities USA is airing a TV ad in South Carolina that jabs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, two of the best-known Republican contenders. The ad coincided with Romney’s visit to the state Saturday, his first since forming a presidential exploratory committee.

“Obama keeps offering praise, which he knows can damage a candidate in a Republican primary, to Romney on health care issues and to Jon Huntsman for his service as the Obama administration’s ambassador to China.

“Huntsman, a former Utah governor, also is considering running.”

The article further reports:

“The Democratic National Committee maintains a barrage of “rapid response” criticisms of Romney, Gingrich, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty and other GOP contenders.

“”Tim Pawlenty: Uninspiring at Best,” said one DNC statement, based on portions of a Time magazine article.

“Some Democrats question the wisdom of undercutting Pawlenty, Gingrich or any other Republican besides Romney, who many see as potentially the strongest contender in a shaky GOP field.

“Bill Burton, a former Obama aide who heads the Priorities USA group, said there’s no point in trying to guess who the Republicans will nominate, and no point in waiting to hit the candidates’ weaknesses.”

It’s time for Republicans to begin to talk about President Obama’s handing of the economy, the way he has treated our allies, and the problems with Obamacare.  Wake up, Republicans, the campaign has already begun.

Today CNS News reported that:

“This year’s election for the U.N. Human Rights Council has, once again, produced a body that has fewer “free” countries – 21 of a total of 47 – and has more than one-third of the seats held by members of the Islamic bloc.”

This really does not seem like an ideal situation.  Islamic nations are not known for their support of what western countries would consider human rights. 

The article lists next year’s Human Rights Council:

“The HRC for the next year comprises:

“Free” countries (21):

“Austria, Benin, Belgium, Botswana, Chile, Costa Rica, Czech, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mauritius, Mexico, Norway, Peru, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland, United States and Uruguay.

“”Not free” (12):

“Angola, Cameroon, China, Congo, Cuba, Jordan, Kyrgyzstan, Libya (currently suspended), Mauritania, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia.

“”Partly free” (14):

“Bangladesh, Burkina Faso, Djibouti, Ecuador, Guatemala, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Moldova, Nigeria, Philippines, Senegal, Uganda, Thailand.

“The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) members are:  Bangladesh, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Djibouti, Indonesia, Jordan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal and Uganda.”

This is not a group of countries committed to protecting human rights as they are commonly understood.  The OIC spends most of its time crafting resolutions that condemn Israel and make criticism of Islam illegal.  This is not a council that will protect or promote anyone’s human rights.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about some states moving toward requiring voters to show identification in order to vote.

Thursday, Wisconsin lawmakers sent a bill requiring photographic identification for voting to Governor Scott Walker’s desk to be signed.  Kansas passed an even stricter law a few weeks ago. 

According to the article:

“…Kansas’s Secure and Fair Elections Act combined three elements: (1) a requirement that voters present photo IDs when they vote in person; (2) a requirement that absentee voters present a full driver’s license number and have their signatures verified; and (3) a proof of citizenship requirement for all newly registered voters. Although a few states, including Georgia, Indiana and Arizona, have enacted one or two of these reforms, Kansas is the only state to enact all three.”

Texas sent a photo-ID bill to Governor Perry last Monday.  Next year Missouri voters will get to vote on a photo-ID requirement.

I posted an article about voter fraud in Texas in March (rightwinggranny.com).  Part of that article stated:

“…Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

The article at the Wall Street Journal also points out:

“Carrying a photo ID has become a part of American life. You can’t cash a check, board a plane, or even buy full-strength Sudafed over the counter without one. That’s why it’s not unreasonable to require one in order to protect our most important privilege of citizenship. But just in case any person lacks a photo ID, Kansas’s law provides a free state ID to anyone who needs one. Other states have included similar provisions in their photo-ID laws.”

Voter identification is needed to keep our elections fair and honest.  In April I reported on documented cases of voter fraud in the last Massachusetts election (rightwinggranny.com).  I hope all states will begin to ask voters to identify themselves when they vote. 

Today’s Wall Street Journal reported that Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels has withdrawn from the 2012 Presidential race.  He stated that he withdrew because he felt that running would not be in the best interest of his family.

Mike Huckabee and Donald Trump have also withdrawn from the race this week.  Governor Daniels was seen as a serious candidate–he had a solid record as a cost cutter as governor of Indiana.

For a presidential campaign that seems to be starting early, this is an odd race.  I believe that what is happening is that the gap between the Republican establishment and the Tea Party is becoming a problem for the Republican establishment.  In the past, the gentlemenly Republicans simply gave the Presidential nomination to the oldest person whose turn it was.  There were occasional contests (for example, Reagan vs. Ford in 1976), but generally speaking, the oldest good guy got the nomination.  I believe the Tea Party changes that scenario.  The Tea Party wants the old guard Republicans to step aside and let someone who will actually cut spending and act like what Republicans are supposed to act like be nominated.  I don’t believe the struggle within the Republican Party will lose the election–I believe it will make the party stronger.

There really is not a first-tier Republican candidate who represents the Tea Party.  Right now the remaining first-tier candidates is Mitt Romney, who will still be explaining Romneycare in the 2016 election.  There are, however, some tea-party acceptable candidates below the first tier–Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, and Tim Pawlenty.  It remains to be seen whether Rick Perry of Texas or Sarah Palin will enter the race.

Whatever happens next, it’s going to be an interesting year and a half.

Remember the AARP ads during the debate about Obamacare?  Remember the AARP telling seniors how good the program was going to be for them?  Remember Andy Griffiith telling all of us how good Obamacare was for senior citizens?

Well, Obamacare is so good that the AARP is going to be exempt from it (after all that advertising).  Yesterday’s Daily Caller reported that:

“…the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rate review rules, which it finalized on Thursday, exempt “Medigap” policy providers, like the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), from oversight when such providers increase payment rates for their supplemental insurance plans.”

If the program is so good, why are they asking for (and receiving) an exemption? 

On March 31, I reported (rightwinggranny.com) that:

“# As a result of the new health care law, the Obama Administration estimates more than 7 million seniors will lose their current Medicare Advantage plans, resulting in a massive migration of seniors to Medigap plans. AARP is the nation’s leading provider of Medigap plans and has a contract in which AARP financially gains for every additional Medigap enrollee.

“# Based on low, mid and high-range estimates, AARP stands to financially gain, over and above the millions of dollars they currently receive from United, between $55 million and $166 million in 2014 alone as a result of new Medigap enrollees stemming from the health care law’s cuts to MA, which AARP strongly endorsed.

“# Under the midrange estimate and under their current contract, AARP’s financial gain from the health care law could exceed $1 billion during the next 10 years. This is because AARP will see their royalty payments increase as seniors are forced out of MA plans and buy AARP Medigap plans instead.”

It’s time to scrap Obamacare, have an honest debate on healthcare (and health insurance) in America, and come up with a program that is fair to everyone.  I really hate the way the Obama administration is using the government to reward the people it sees as helping their agenda.  I realize that people in Washington play politics, but this is beyond the pale.

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article called, “I used to be drunk, but now I am bipolar.”  The title of the article is a quote from a man who was applying for Social Security disability insurance.  Thursday’s Wall Street Journal featured an article about a West Virginia Social Security administration judge who granted benefits to 100 % of the people who appeared before him. 

In the 1950’s Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) was created to provide benefits to workers who were physically unable to work.  That program was expanded in the Nixon administraiton to give benefits to the poor.  Over the years the program expanded to cover mental illnesses.  In 1984 President Reagan expanded the laws regarding mental illness.  To give you an idea of how the program has grown, in 1984 about 64,000 were given SSDI benefits due to mental illnesses.  In 1986 it was over 124,000.  In 2009 it was over 216,000.  The result is that more than 2.4 million people recieve benefits for “mental disorders other than retardation.” 

Because Social Security Disability cases are brought to judges in the various districts, the decisions of those judges vary.  There is no national standard.  We are in danger of having the SSDI become nothing more than an extended unemployment compensation program. 

It’s time to change the SSDI program to be more efficient, more consistent, and more able to meet the needs of the American people.  Just standardizing the requirements to collect SSDI would be a step in the right direction.  A little Congressional oversight wouldn’t hurt either.

Today’s New York Post posted an article about the planned National September 11th Memorial that is expected to open at Ground Zero in New York on September 11 of this year.  There are no restrooms included in the plans for the eight-acre site of the memorial.  The site includes two large reflecting pools and cascading waterfalls, which are designed to give visitors a feeling of serenity.  Meanwhile, the nearest bathroom (as things currently stand) is inside the discount department story Century21, across the wide 16-acre plaza on Cortlandt Street.

Hopefully, someone will figure out a way to include bathrooms in the design before the memorial opens, but that does not seem to be a given. 

The article reports:

“”Visitors will be provided with information to help plan their visit, including being advised that bathrooms will not be accessible on the site,” Bloomberg spokesman Andrew Brent said.

The museum — which will reach seven stories underneath the memorial plaza — will be equipped with toilets, according to City Hall. But it isn’t scheduled to open until fall 2012.”

Meanwhile, have a nice hike to Century21.  My husband pointed out to me that the plans for this memorial had to pass a lot of criteria to be approved–Americans with Disabilities Act, Zoning Laws, Building Codes, etc.  How is it that no one in the chain of approvals noticed the lack of bathrooms?  Is someone not doing their job? 

There is a website called defensibleborders.org that has a post by Maj.-Gen (res.) Yaakov Amidror describing defensible borders for Israel–what they are and why they are what they are.  The post is rather long, and the above link will get you there.  I will try to summarize, but the original is better and also has maps.

The article points out:

“Israel’s struggle for “defensible borders” is unique in international diplomacy. It emanates from both the special legal and strategic circumstances that Israel faced in the aftermath of the 1967 Six-Day War, when the Israel Defense Forces captured the West Bank and other territories in a war of self-defense. The previous armistice line of 1949 that separated the Israeli and Jordanian armies was only a military boundary and not a permanent political border, according to the armistice agreement itself. The Jordanian occupation of the West Bank occurred in conjunction with its illegal invasion of the State of Israel in 1948. In fact, Jordanian sovereignty in the West Bank was not recognized by a single Arab state. This provided the background for UN Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967 which concluded that Israel would need “secure and recognized boundaries” that would necessarily be different from the 1967 lines. The previous status quo was not to be restored. In diplomatic shorthand, President George W. Bush stated on April 14, 2004, that Israel had a right to “defensible borders,” in order to convey the same point.”

The bold type in the above quote from the article is mine–it is not in the original article.

The article further points out:

“According to the principles of defense adopted by armies all over the world, there are three basic criteria for evaluating the adequacy of a defensive plan:

1. A battle space with the necessary depth, so that suitable defensive forces can be deployed in stages.

2. A reserve force of a sufficient level of strength to counterattack in order to restore the situation to what it was prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

3. A suitable distance from the strategic interior, predicated on the assumption that its conquest or serious damage could undermine the army’s ability to hold firm.

All of these principles presuppose one cardinal assumption about the conduct of wars:

Since no defensive system will remain the same as it was at the beginning of an attack – and must break apart – there is a necessity for sufficient depth for the reserve forces to mass and there is a need for adequate space before enemy forces reach the strategic interior of a state.

Since the 1967 lines do not meet a single one of these criteria for establishing an adequate defensive plan, there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that these cannot be said to constitute defensible or secure borders. The 1967 lines may have certain other advantages from a non-military perspective; some might even think, as a result, that they are good lines. But from a professional military standpoint, relying on the 1967 lines to defend the State of Israel entails an enormous risk, because an army that is deployed along them will not be able to guarantee Israel’s defense, should there be a war in the future.”

This should be rather obvious to anyone paying attention, but for whatever reason, many countries of the world are choosing to look the other way rather than to apply these principles to Israel.

The world is now at a fork in the road.  Do we ignore the threat to Israel as we ignored Kristallnacht in November 1938, and push forward a bogus peace agreement that guarantees a second Holocaust?  In September, the United Nations will take a vote to answer that question.  Which side will the United States be on?

One of my Facebook friends sent me this link to a YouTube video.  The video was posted on YouTube in February, 2010.  I have no idea where it was taken.  Some of the audio is not perfect, but the important part of the video is very clear–technically and factually.  The video is of Col. Allen West answering a question about the motives of terrorists.  Please follow the link to watch the video.

Yesterday Jake Tapper at ABC News posted a story about how President Obama is avoiding being held accountable by the War Powers Act now that sixty days have passed since the United States got involved in the war in Libya. 

The article reports:

“President Obama wrote a letter to congressional leaders this afternoon suggesting that the role is now so “limited” he does not need to seek congressional approval.

“”Since April 4,” the president wrote, “U.S. participation has consisted of: (1) non-kinetic support to the NATO-led operation, including intelligence, logistical support, and search and rescue assistance; (2) aircraft that have assisted in the suppression and destruction of air defenses in support of the no-fly zone; and (3) since April 23, precision strikes by unmanned aerial vehicles against a limited set of clearly defined targets in support of the NATO-led coalition’s efforts.””

Wow.  That is one interesting set of verbal gobbledegook.  I’ll bet some previous presidents would have loved to get away with language like that. 

The article further states:

“The president voiced support for a bipartisan resolution drafted by Senators John Kerry, D-Mass., John McCain, R-Ariz., Carl Levin, D-Mich., Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Lindsey Graham, R-SC, and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., stating that Congress “supports the U.S. mission in Libya and that both branches are united in their commitment to supporting the aspirations of the Libyan people for political reform and self-government…Congressional action in support of the mission would underline the U.S. commitment to this remarkable international effort.”

“Earlier this month, Kerry – who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee – described his resolution as “in limbo.””

I don’t mean to be difficult, but do you think for a moment that if this were a Republican president Congress would be so docile?

CNS News posted a story today about the President’s speech calling for a return to the 1967 borders of Israel.  The article points out:

“When then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from the Gaza Strip in the summer of 2005 – uprooting 9,000 Israelis living there in the process – he did so largely on the basis of assurances contained in a letter sent by President George W. Bush the previous year.

“In the letter, Bush referred to the future boundaries of Israel arising from “final status” negotiations leading to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

“”In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” Bush wrote, adding that “all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”

“”It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities,” he continued.

“The crucial Bush letter was endorsed by large majorities of both Houses of Congress in June 2004.”

Obviously President Obama was either unaware of that letter or chose to ignore it. 

The article at CNS News quotes Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s reply:

“In his response to Obama’s speech, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu – who is due to meet with Obama at the White House on Friday – referred to Bush’s 2004 assurances.

“”Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace.  Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state,” his office said in a statement.

“”That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004, which were overwhelmingly supported by both Houses of Congress,” it said.

“”Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines which are both indefensible and which would leave major Israeli population centers in Judea and Samaria beyond those lines.””

The speech made by President Obama yesterday ignored the 2004 letter and Congressional action.  If the suggestions for peace made by President Obama were followed, Israel would not exist within a year.

The Hill reported yesterday that Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the Democrats will not present a 2012 budget until deficit talks led by Vice President Biden have concluded.

Power Line cited some of the history of the Democrats and budgets:

This is why Kent Conrad, Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, ignored the law that requires his committee to produce a budget by April 15. He has now announced that a scheduled markup of a budget bill has been deferred indefinitely. Today, ranking member Jeff Sessions said:

“I appreciate that Senator Conrad has recognized the serious concerns that I, my Republican colleagues, and millions of Americans have over the decision of the Democrat-led Senate to not pass a budget in the last 750 days, to not present a budget at all this year, and to not even allow the budget process to go forward. However, today’s announcement does not ease my concern nor, I would imagine, the concern now felt by people throughout this country. It seems Senate Democrats are desperately trying to avoid having to present a budget to the American people. They know that the big spenders in their caucus prevent them from bringing forward a credible plan that both their party and the country can support.

“… Today’s announcement is just another excuse for delay–delay with no end in sight.

“Nothing can change the fact that as long as Democrats retain the majority in the Senate–the majority they asked the American people to confer upon them–it is their responsibility, as required by statute, to publicly present their budget to the American people. … Once produced, the budget must be available for amendment, debate, and floor action as provided by law. …

“Sooner or later every Senator will have to stand and be counted.”

I think it is becoming very obvious that the Democrats do not want to stand and be counted–they would rather let the Republicans suggest solutions so that the Democrats can attack them.

This is a link to a YouTube video of an ad put together by the  Agenda Project.  A clearer copy of the video can be found at Power Line.

The video is meant to represent Paul Ryan pushing granny off of a cliff.  Well, Paul Ryan is not the person pushing granny off the cliff.  In a related post at Power Line, John Hinderaker points out that Medicare as it curently stands must either be reformed or terminated.

The report recently released by the Medicare Trustees tells us:

“…that Obamacare, because it calls for across-the-board cuts in Medicare funding but does not put in place the market mechanisms for encouraging greater productivity in health care, spells disaster for Medicare providers, and therefore for Medicare recipients….”

On September 9, 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported:

“Altogether, ObamaCare cuts $818 billion from Medicare Part A (hospital insurance) from 2014-2023, the first 10 years of its full implementation, and $3.2 trillion over the first 20 years, 2014-2033. Adding in ObamaCare cuts for Medicare Part B (physicians fees and other services) brings the total cut to $1.05 trillion over the first 10 years and $4.95 trillion over the first 20 years.”

Paul Ryan’s plan for Medicare reforms it, brings competition into it, and streamlines it.  Also, Paul Ryan’s plan does not impact anyone over the age of 55.  Paul Ryan is not the one pushing granny over the cliff.  Hopefully the people who see this ad are smart enough to realize that.

Reuters reported today that:

“Shareholders of the world’s largest fast-food chain resoundingly rejected a proposal that would have required it to issue a report outlining its role in the childhood obesity epidemic, saying customers were free to make their own dietary choices.”

I may be going against the tide here, but I don’t hold McDonald’s to be responsible for childhood obesity.  There is no one pointing a gun at parents’ heads and telling them to drive to McDonald’s for dinner.  Ronald McDonald is a cute mascot, but he is not responsible for obesity in America.

If you are looking for a cause of obesity in America, I have a few suggestions:

• schools that have eliminated recess
• schools that have banned dodge ball
• schools that have banned tag
• video games
• working mothers that simply don’t have the time to shop for and prepare nutritious meals or don’t have the knowledge of what makes a balanced diet
• the food pyramid that we were sold on for so many years that is actually the eating pattern used to fatten cattle
• school systems that no longer require physical education classes in high school

If anyone has any other suggestions, I would love to hear them.

This is a link to a website called Prager University which puts the wisdom of Dennis Prager on short videos.  Dennis points out the history of the nation of Israel–what it has gone through and how its borders came to be.  Please follow the link to watch the video–it is extremely informative.

Today Investors.com posted an article about the latest skirmish in the battle for Boeing to be free to open an assembly plant in South Carolina.  The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), now stacked with President Obama’s pro-union appointees, is attempting to block Boeing from opening a new assembly line for the 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina because South Carolina is a right-to-work state, as opposed to Washington, where the other Boeing assembly lines are located. 

Investors.com reports:

“One week after Republican senators introduced a bill to counter the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint vs. Boeing (BA), not a single Democrat, not even the ones who represent states with right-to-work laws, have signed on as co-sponsors. According to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., they’re not going to get any either, and that probably dooms the bill.

“”Whether we can get any Democratic support is very doubtful. They are very afraid of doing anything that antagonizes unions, even if behind the scenes they agree with us,” DeMint told IBD. “So I don’t really know that we can pass it.”

“DeMint said the GOP will continue to push it, but conceded it needs bipartisan support to break the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold. The Democrats “saw what happened to Blanche Lincoln,” he said, referring to the pro-business Senate Democrat from Arkansas who was targeted by Big Labor during her 2010 re-election bid. She survived a brutal primary, but was too damaged to win the general election, though she probably would have been a longshot in any case.”

This is truly sad.  We have so politicized our government that many elected officials are incapable of making a decision based on fair play. 

The article further reports:

“Boeing has signaled it will challenge the complaint. An NLRB hearing on it is set for mid-June. Should the NLRB uphold the complaint, Boeing can appeal it to federal court. DeMint said he believes that the NLRB does not think it can win an appeal but hopes to put enough of a drain on Boeing to send a message to other companies thinking of expanding to right-to-work states.”

Until someone in the Democrat party develops a backbone, the thuggery will continue.

Yesterday’s Daily Caller posted a story about Elena Kagan’s involvement as a member of the Obama administration in the crafting of the legal defense of Obamacare.  Information obtained by Judicial Watch through the Freedom of Information Act shows an email trail which indicates that the administation’s plan was to have the Office of Solicitor General heavily involved in the defense of Obamacare.  This plan was initially carried out.  However, once Elena Kagan was nominated to the Supreme Court, the effort was made to distance her from Obamacare and efforts were made to keep her previous actions hidden. 

The documents uncovered indicate that Ms. Kagan’s claims that she had not been involved with the Obamacare legislation may not have been entirely true.

We know from experience that there will be no obvious consequences for misleading the Senators on the Judiciary Committee.  However, I don’t feel as if we are asking too much to expect Ms. Kagan to recuse herself from any lawsuits involving Obamacare.

I don’t even know the words to express how furious I am over this proclamation.  In April I posted an article about the myth of the 1967 borders (rightwinggranny.com).

In that article, I explained:

“… 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.”

This is a map of the land given to Israel after half of it was given to Transjordan to establish a state for the Hashemites (who had just been driven out of Mecca and Medina by the Wahabi Muslims).  The Hashemites had been custodians of Mecca and Medina for centuries:

All of the land that is white or dark orange in the above map had originally been given to Israel in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 and agreed to by the Arabs involved.  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 signed after all of Israel’s neighbors invaded her after she became a nation.

I have a question.  How come Israel has to give back her land that she reclaimed in 1967 and the Arabs are supposed to be given the land they stole from Israel in 1949?

President Obama is on the wrong side of history on this and the wrong side of morality.  Giving the Arabs more land is not going to stop the violence in the Middle East–it is going to increase it.

Asking whether or not to fund the Peace Corps might be considered blasphemy in some circles, but there are a few aspects of the Peace Corps that haven’t gotten a lot of attention.  Yesterday Big Government posted an article about Republican efforts to slash government funding for the Peace Corps.  How could they?  Unfortunately, when you look at the history of the organization–easily.

The article reports on the treatment of women in the Peace Corps–being sent into dangerous areas without sufficient protection and then, in the instances (and there were more than a few) where they were raped, being denied adequate medical care or being told that the rape was their fault.  Is this any way to run any organization?

The article reports:

“Of course, he (Senator Harry Reid) had nothing to say in response to charges that perhaps the Peace Corps isn’t so peaceful. At least not for the women who were raped – and then blamed for being raped – during their stints in the corps. No ado was made about the House hearing on Wednesday investigating the same either, nor the legislation proposed by Congressman Poe (R-TX) that would require some Peace Corps oversight. In fact, the New York Times reported that Democrats wished to, as always, sweep such things under the rug in fear that their precious funding might be lost:”

One story the article relates:

“Deborah Gardner was murdered by fellow Peace Corps worker Dennis Priven, who turned himself in. After stabbing her – 22 times – to death. The Peace Corps reaction? Try to cover it up:

“”Even after everyone knew it was Dennis, already that effort by the Peace Corps to put the blame somewhere else. And to make things go away,” says Weiss. “That impulse has seized the Peace Corps within moments of Deb’s death.”

“As revolting as that is, they went one further. The Peace Corps hired, and paid for, the best defense attorney available in Tonga. Priven was found not guilty and the Peace Corps quietly shuffled him back to the United States. Where he lived freely, for decades. Working for the government. No, really:

“Weiss says Priven has led a small, anonymous life since then. He’s divorced, and he recently retired after working for decades for the U.S. government.

“”Twelve years after Deb’s death, he was working for Social Security,” says Weiss. “And ultimately was their top computer guy in the Brooklyn office.””

This is not an organization that deserves one penny of taxpayer money.

Sometimes living in Massachusetts is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.  You know what is about to happen, but you are having a hard time believing it.

Fox News is reporting today the the Massachusetts legislature is working to change the divorce laws in the state–the goal is to prevent domestic violence and shield children while the divorce is underway.  So what is the law being proposed?   The proposed bill would prevent divorcing parents from “conducting a dating or sexual relationship within the home” until the divorce is final.  This is an amazing invasion of privacy–even for Massachusetts.

Massachusetts is a one-party state.  It is run by Democrats.  These are the same Democrats that regularly complain that Republicans want to control what goes on in people’s bedrooms.  I have never seen a piece of Republican legislation that invaded people’s homes to this extent.  I am simply amazed that, as the state is dealing with severe budget problems and political leaders being charged with serious crimes, that the legislature chooses to focus on the dating habits of people obtaining divorces.  It simply boggles the mind.

On February 11, 2011, the New York Times reported that according to the Obama administration, four states had been given waivers for Obamacare– Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Tennessee.  On Monday, the Las Vegas Sun reported that Nevada had been given a partial waiver to Obamacare.

I have a question.  If the Congressmen from these states voted to pass Obamacare, why are their states now seeking (and getting) waivers from the healthcare program? 

The article in the Las Vegas Sun reports:

“The change is less the feds giving underperforming insurance agencies a free pass than buying time for providers to shape up, or policyholders to ship out with reasonable warning time: Nevada has no law that says if you lose insurance because your insurer shuts down, another company has to pick you up. To prevent that, Health and Human Services determined it had to “provide the opportunity for plans with low ‘medical loss ratios’ to adjust their business models to reach 80 percent” with the reduced, 75 percent mandate for the rest of 2011 — that being the average medical loss ratio that the state’s top 10 insurers currently post.

“For Republicans, the waiver is proof of what they’ve been arguing all along — that Obama’s health care law was never going to work and has to go.

“”It is becoming increasingly clear how flawed this law really is,” Nevada Sen. Dean Heller said in a statement Monday. “Not only did it cut a half trillion dollars from Medicare, impacting thousands of Nevada’s seniors, now the law would have driven health insurers out of our state if a reprieve had not been granted.

“”This is why ‘Obamacare’ will not work for Nevada,” Heller said.”

Obamacare was not designed to help Americans become insured at more reasonable rates–it was designed to create government-run health insurance.  Unless it is totally repealed before it has a chance to be fully instituted, we will lose the health insurance infrastructure that we currently have, and the quality and availability of heathcare in America will drop drastically.  Right now waivers are being given to those organizations that helped put Obamacare in place as a reward for their support, but if Obamacare was really that good, would its supporters be given waivers?

Because of the Bakken shale oil, the three states with the lowest unemployment rates are Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota.  The rates in those states range between 3.2 and 3.4 percent.  The oil is providing energy and jobs.  You would think that the Obama administration (and the New York Times) would be celebrating the success of those states.  Well, think again.

Yesterday’s New York Times contained the following correction:

“An article on May 7 about the Obama administration’s appointment of a panel of experts to find ways to make hydraulic fracturing safer misstated the prevalence of cases in which fluids from the gas drilling process have been proven to have contaminated drinking water. There are few documented cases, not numerous ones, although federal and state investigations into reports of such incidents are continuing.”

Even the correction is misleading.  John Hinderaker at Power Line posted the part of the original New York Times’ story that the correction applied to:

“Hydraulic fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of fluids into underground shale formations to break open natural gas pockets. The technique, which has been in limited use for decades, is expected to significantly increase recovery of domestic gas supplies and keep prices moderate for years.

“But the process also pours millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into the ground and into wastewater treatment systems, which in some cases cannot remove all the potential toxins. There are also numerous documented cases in which fracking fluids leaked into aquifers and contaminated drinking water.”

The New York Times then attacked Republicans on the issue:

“Within hours, House Republicans issued a press release denouncing the study as wasteful, duplicative, and another example of red tape run amok. They said that fracking has been used safely for more than 60 years and that the Environmental Protection Agency already has sufficient authority to regulate it.”

The misinformation led to an attack on Republicans by the New York Times.  The correction did not correct that attack in any way.  The New York Times had successfuly attacked the Republicans and cast a shadow on the development of a resource that could help make America more energy independent.  Mission accomplished. 

John Hinderaker concludes:

“So the Times reported the story so as to make Republicans look stupid or venal. In fact, the House Republicans were right: hydraulic fracking has a long, safe history. We need to get going on developing our vast natural gas resources, not appoint another panel to stall development in the name of a barely-existent environmental problem. But only the handful of readers who saw the correction would have any idea how misleading the Times’ original article was.”

I wonder how many people who read the correction understood how the initial article was used as an attack piece on Republicans and an attack on the efforts of Americans to become energy independent.