Monthly Archives: February 2012

Does This Bother Anyone Else ?

Posted on by

Today’s Boston Herald reported that a bankruptcy judge has approved nearly $370,000 in bonuses for certain employees of Solyndra LLC.

The article reports:

Solyndra, based in Fremont, Calif., wanted to award bonuses of up to $500,000 to as many as 21 employees but scaled back its request after discussions with its official creditors committee.

Gee, that makes me feel so much better.

The article further reports:

Solyndra, which has failed to find a buyer to operate the company as a going concern, says it needs to retain key employees with the expertise needed for an orderly liquidation of its remaining assets.

For that kind of money I would volunteer to handle the liquidation! As I reported on January 23 (rightwinggranny.com), the liquidation is not being handled well:

At Solyndra’s sprawling complex in Fremont, workers in white jumpsuits were unwrapping brand new glass tubes used in solar panels last week. They are the latest, most cutting-edge solar technology, and they are being thrown into dumpsters.

This is taxpayer money, and as a taxpayer–I object!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Impact Of Raising Taxes On Dividends

Posted on by

This is a chart from today’s Wall Street Journal:

1dividends

The chart shows what happens when taxes on dividends is raised. The editorial that goes with the chart goes into the details of why this happens. Please follow the link to read the details.

The chart was posted in response to President Obama’s proposal to raise taxes on dividends from today’s rate of 15 percent to 39.6 percent, actually 41 percent after the phase out of deductions and exemptions, and a 3.8 percent surcharge, giving you an effective rate of 44.8 percent. The new rate would only apply to those making over $200,000 a year (individuals) or $250,000 (couple).

Exactly who would be impacted by this increase in the dividends tax? Actually, senior citizens would be hardest hit (yes, that is one of many reasons I am up in arms about this!). As you can see from the graph, when the tax rate on dividends goes down, corporations pay more dividends. Many senior citizens live on their dividends–if dividends decrease, their income decreases. Paying fewer dividends also devalues stocks–thus impacting everyone’s stock portfolio or 401k plan. Everyone loses.

The article concludes:

Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.

We need to stop worrying so much about soaking the rich and worrying more about making tax policy that allows everyone who works hard to become rich!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Fairness Thing

Posted on by

Thomas Sowell posted an article at Townhall.com dealing with the subject of fairness in tax policy.

Mr. Sowell describes the supposed justification for higher taxes on the rich, and then asks a questions we should all be asking:

He pointed out that a child born to a poor woman in the Bronx enters the world with far worse prospects than a child born to an affluent couple in Connecticut.

No one can deny that. The relevant question, however, is: How does allowing politicians to take more money in taxes from successful people, to squander in ways that will improve their own reelection prospects, make anything more “fair” for others?

How much has the billions of dollars spent of the War on Poverty actually helped alleviate poverty in America?

Mr. Sowell points out that giving money to single mothers has not helped alleviate their poverty problems–instead, it has increased the number of single mothers. Since children raised by a single parent do not do as well as children who grow up with their two original parents, increasing the number of single parents is not ‘fair’ to anyone.

Mr. Sowell concludes:

High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates — or perhaps any taxes at all.

What is worse than class warfare is phony class warfare. Slippery talk about “fairness” is at the heart of this fraud by politicians seeking to squander more of the nation’s resources.

We have reached the point where half of Americans pay no income taxes. If we don’t level out the tax burden to the point where everyone pays something, we will find ourselves with a very small number of people trying to support those who are not paying taxes and have no interest in what the tax rate is. We are almost there already.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When The Government Tries To Decide Who Prospers Nobody Prospers

Posted on by

Today’s Daily Caller posted an article showing how the Obama Administration interfered in the market on behalf of the company LightSquared.

The article deals with the delay of permits to GlobalStar after an earthquake in Italy impacted its supply chain.

The article reports:

During the months while GlobalStar’s request languished in the FCC’s slow-moving bureaucracy, the agency was helping to finalize the sale of SkyTerra to Harbinger. That company would ultimately become LightSquared.

On Feb. 26, 2010, one week before the FCC acknowledged GlobalStar’s request, Harbinger and the FCC agreed on conditions that would forbid LightSquared from selling to Verizon and AT&T any spectrum it would later acquire.

The delay allowed LightSquared to move forward while GlobalStar waited.

Who profited by this delay? The article reports:

Also during those late spring months in 2010, several advocacy groups funded by left-wing billionaire George Soros were advocating for the adoption of “open-access” Internet rules. Soros’ Open Society Institute has donated more than $1 million to the four organizations that comprise the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition. He is reported to have invested $200 million personally in Harbinger.

It’s time to bring back an honest free market. The Obama Administration is obviously not playing by the rules.

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Under The Radar In UNESCO Funding

Posted on by

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about John Bolton’s book Surrender Is Not An Option: Defending America at the United Nations and Abroad. In the book, John Bolton tells the story of the PLO’s efforts to be recognized by the United Nations without negotiating with Israel.

The article reports:

In early 1989, Bolton writes, the PLO had launched a major effort to join several specialized UN agencies in the UN system. — “yet another example of the PLO’s perennial strategy to improve its position vis-a-vis Israel by doing anything other than negotiating directly with the Israelis.” The PLO membership campaign followed from the PLO’s 1988 decision to change its name card at the UN from “Palestine Liberation Organization” to “Palestine” — “apparently under the theory that if you sound more like a country than an organization, people will treat you more like a country.”

The next logical step, Bolton reports, was to have “Palestine” become a member of the various UN agencies, thus further attesting to its status as a “state” in international circles in that membership in the organizations is limited to states. How could the United States effectively opposed the PLO’s charade given the PLO’s wide support at the UN?

The first targets of the PLO were the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The United States countered that move by telling the WHO that the United States would withhold funding if Palestine was admitted. We had already withdrawn from UNESCO, but stated that we would not rejoin if Palestine was admitted. In 1990, Congress passed a law requiring the termination of United States funding of any international organization that recognizes Palestinian statehood in the absence of a peace agreement with Israel.

Based on that law, we withdrew funding of UNESCO last year when Palestine was admitted. Unfortunately, President Obama has overturned that withdrawal.  The article reports:

But that’s not the end of the story. JTA reports: “The Obama administration formally announced its intention to ask Congress to waive a ban on funding UNESCO over its recognition of Palestinian statehood.”

And that’s not all! The Obama administration courageously buried announcement of its intention in a footnote to the budget that the White House submitted to Congress this month.

Will Congress restore funding? That’s not entirely clear, but not if Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen has anything to do with it. “Any effort to walk back this funding cutoff will pave the way for the Palestinian leadership’s unilateral statehood scheme to drive on, and sends a disastrous message that the U.S. will fund UN bodies no matter what irresponsible decisions they make,” she said in a statement. The Bolton spirit lives on, if not in the Obama administration.

The President needs to follow the law as it was passed in 1990.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Need Internet News Sources

Posted on by

The Daily Caller has recently been doing an investigation into the group Media Matters. Media Matters is a tax exempt organization supposedly created to correct conservative misinformation in the media. However, Media Matters is looking more and more like an auxiliary wing of the White House and Democrat party.

The Daily Caller reports:

The liberal Media Matters for America organization once accepted a $50,000 grant to monitor and attack religious news outlets, according to tax returns examined by The Daily Caller.

The grant came in 2006 from the ARCA Foundation, a 60-year-old philanthropy that funds Democratic causes. The foundation gave Media Matters the $50,000 “to support a Religious Broadcasting Project to expand the monitoring and fact checking of religious broadcasts,” according to its tax return that year.

This is the link to the Daily Caller page with information about the other aspects of the investigation.

This organization is tax exempt. It seems to me that the first step in dealing with Media Matters would be to revisit their tax-exempt status.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Need An Honest Election In 2012

Posted on by
 This article has two sources–GoLocalWorcester and Judicial Watch.

The article at GoLocalWorcester lists some basic facts about the integrity of recent elections and the impact of voter ID laws:

A study by the Colorado secretary of state found that nearly 5,000 noncitizens voted in Colorado’s closely contested 2010 Senate race.

According Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp, after a photo ID law in 2008, the number of African-American voters has increased more than ten percent. Additionally, all voting demographics have grown at the rate of population growth. Moreover, prior to the passage, they investigated and penalized hundreds of people guilty of election and voter fraud every election cycle.

An article in the in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette tells us that of 1.3 million new registrations ACORN turned in 2008, election officials rejected 400,000. Do you suppose they caught all of the bad ones?

1.8 million deceased individuals are listed as active voters.

And in our City of Worcester, when the Worcester voter census was finally brought in compliance with state law in 2011, some 45% of voters were classified as “inactive”.

Judicial Watch reports:

As the presidential election approaches, the potential for voter fraud is dangerously high nationwide with nearly 2 million dead people still registered to cast ballots, about 3 million eligible to vote in two or more states and millions more that are inaccurate, duplicate or out of date.

The alarming figures were published this week in a report issued by the non-partisan Pew Center on States. It reveals that approximately 24 million active voter registrations in the United States are no longer valid or have significant inaccuracies. The problem, apparently, is an outdated registration system that can’t properly maintain records.

…Preserving the integrity of the election process has been a huge issue for Judicial Watch over the years. Just last week JW launched the 2012 Election Integrity Project to pressure states and localities to clean up voter registration polls in order to comply with Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). A lengthy JW investigation of public records indicates that voter rolls in numerous states have more registered voters than voting-age population.

Among the states that appear to contain names of individuals who are ineligible to vote are Florida, California, Texas, Colorado, Ohio, Mississippi, Iowa, Indiana and West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Missouri. This month JW sent warning letters to election officials in Indiana and Ohio as well as letters of inquiry to Florida and California officials as part of the probe into their problematic voting lists.

Meanwhile, in its February 2012 newsletter, Judicial Watch reported that through records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), they have learned that there has been extensive communication between the Department of Justice and Estelle Rogers, a former ACORN attorney currently serving as Director of Advocacy for Project Vote. This close relationship is not healthy for our democracy or for our next election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Having It Both Ways On Religious Organizations

Posted on by

On Friday CNS News posted an article about the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLFP) that President Obama signed into law on January 31 of this year. The government took over the student loan program in July of 2010. Now we are beginning to see the consequences.

The article reports:

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage graduates to go into public service professions. The program forgives the balances of student loans for such graduates after they have made 120 full payments.

The new rules deny loan forgiveness to graduates who chose to go into public service with a religious orientation.

Religious organizations are seen as separate from public service in this law, yet in the healthcare law religious organizations are included and required to violate their consciences. The PSLFP also rules out labor unions and partisan political organizations. At least that makes sense.

The article further reports:

The Obama administration views anything the church does outside of the church building itself as not covered by the First Amendment’s religious liberty language.

Just as ObamaCare gave the Obama administration incredible power to regulate the health care industry – power it is now using to mandate limits to how Catholics live out their faith in America – the government takeover of the student loan business has empowered government to make these  new student loans forgiveness rules, by which the administration again attacks religious organizations that dare to reach out to the broader community.

Religious organization often view community outreach ministries as part of their religious mission. A church operating a free clinic for the poor, a shelter for the homeless, or gathering clothing and food for the less fortunate often views its efforts as both living out the will of the Savior and seeking to bring more people to Him. In other words, charity is often also a form of proselytizing.

The bottom line here is simple. The First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion. Most Christians interpret that as the freedom to practice their religion; the Obama Administration interprets that as the freedom to worship inside their church walls. The Obama Administration is attempting to take the morals of Christianity out of the public discourse. It’s time for all freedom-loving Americans to wake up and stop this assault on one of our basic freedoms.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why America Needs To Be Energy Independent

Posted on by

President Obama’s blocking of the Keystone Pipeline had an obvious negative impact on jobs–the pipeline would have created thousands of jobs instantly–but it had a more dangerous long term impact on America’s energy independence. Alternative energy will not give us that independence at this time–we are a carbon based economy. The fruits of the decision to block the Keystone Pipeline and limit domestic energy production are becoming very obvious today.

Reuters is reporting today that Iran has stopped selling crude oil to British and French companies in retaliation for sanctions imposed because of Iran’s nuclear program.

The article reports:

Iran was supplying more than 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) to the EU plus Turkey in 2011, industry sources said.

By the start of this year imports had sunk to about 650,000 bpd as some customers cut back in anticipation of an EU ban.

Saudi Arabia says it is prepared to supply extra oil either by topping up existing term contracts or by making rare spot market sales. Iran has criticized Riyadh for the offer.

The European country most impacted by the Iranian move is Greece.

CNBC reported today that in December Saudi Arabia cut its oil production and exports.

CNBC reports:

Iraq, another frequently-cited supplier to make up for part of the Iranian oil shortfall following European Union sanctions,  reported no major changes to its supply and export regime. Authorities there are pursuing an ambitious production expansion plan with the aim of reaching 12 million bpd by 2016.

The Reuters article reports:

Brent crude oil prices were up $1 a barrel to $118.35 shortly after Iran’s state media announced last week that Tehran had cut oil exports to six European states. The report was denied shortly afterwards by Iranian officials.

“We have our own customers … The replacements for these companies have been considered by Iran,” Nikzad said.

This is not good news for the western world. Now is the time for America to develop any and all of its energy sources. Even if we drilled everywhere today, we would still be facing a summer of at least $5 a gallon gasoline, but if we drilled everywhere today, we would at least have a better outlook for the future.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why It Is So Difficult To Get Government Spending Under Control

Posted on by

Yesterday Big Government posted an article about part of the deal that allowed the payroll tax holiday to continue for the year. One way to offset the cost was to increase the amount of money federal employees pay toward their pensions by .08%. First of all, the concept is false. The money that will not be taken out of your paycheck this year was supposed to go toward the non-existent ‘Social Security Fund’–not the general fund. All the payroll tax holiday is doing is hastening the demise of Social Security.

Meanwhile, the article at Big Government quotes the union leader’s reaction:

 “Working class men and women who have dedicated their lives to serve their country should not be on the hook for solving a crisis they did not create,” American Federation of Government Employees National President John Gage said.

[…]

Continuing to attack federal employees’ pay and benefits doesn’t create new jobs and only adds to the pain and suffering many working class men and women are experiencing,” Gage said.

For the moment I am going to ignore the fact that federal workers make double what their counterparts in private industry make (USA Today 8/13/2010) and focus on exactly what the .08% means in actual dollars. If you, as a federal worker, were currently contributing $100 to your pension plan, you are now required to contribute $100.80. That small amount will save the government about $15 billion.

I don’t think 80 cents is an attack on working class men and women. If they are so unhappy with paying the 80 cents, maybe they should try to get a job in the private sector.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Abuse Of Small Businessmen

Posted on by

This is a press release from Senator Scott Brown’s website:

Washington, DC – Yesterday, U.S. Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) filed a Freedom of Information Act request for an Inspector General report on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) illicit purchase and use of a $300,000 luxury fishing boat. The request was granted, and today Senator Brown spoke from the Senate floor to reveal the numerous abuses detailed in the previously unknown findings of the Inspector General. Click here to read the report.

Remarks as prepared for delivery:

I rise today to inform you and the public of some highly disturbing information that I’ve just learned about a broken agency within our federal government – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

We all know that Washington doesn’t spend our money wisely. But sometimes it is worth highlighting examples of the corruption and waste.

Yesterday morning, I contacted the Commerce Department Inspector General to request a copy of their report on NOAA’s purchase of a $300,000 luxury boat.

It would be bad enough if they had purchased this boat with taxpayer dollars.

But they didn’t. They paid for it with money that should belong to our struggling fishermen.  They paid for it out of the fines that fishermen pay into the pot when they mistakenly catch the wrong kind of fish. Those dollars are supposed to stay in fishing communities to help the fishermen.

Here’s the boat. For a government vessel, that’s pretty flashy. Take a look inside. That’s a fully-appointed bar, the latest in on-board entertainment systems, and leather furniture complete with the ice chest and tackle rack.

Furthermore, the fines that fishermen have been paying are putting fishermen out of business. The stories will break your heart.

So let me again describe the situation: NOAA levied totally unreasonable fines against our fishermen. Then they used that money to buy themselves a luxury boat. So what else did the IG investigation find? Mr. President, here are the disturbing headlines. 

According to the IG, NOAA had no reasonable official use for this boat.  Let’s start there.  They didn’t need it. Period. They had some story about needing an “undercover vessel” to sneak up on whale watching vessels.  Imagine that – armed federal agents sneaking up on school groups and tourists trying to learn about nature. The IG found this to be as ridiculous. NOAA officials wanted this useless luxury boat, then they invented a reason to buy it with fishermen’s hard-earned dollars.

So why did NOAA go to such lengths to “manipulate” and “violate” the government purchasing rules to get this boat?  NOAA already has many boats and more cars than it has agents, so why add this to the inventory?  Well, Mr. President, they apparently didn’t need it for official purposes. We know that because the IG says that it was never – I repeat, never – used for official business.

The sad truth is that it was a fishermen-funded party boat for bureaucrats, Mr. President.  That’s right, while fishermen in Gloucester and New Bedford are struggling to put off foreclosure or mourning the loss of their livelihood because of NOAA’s overzealous enforcement, the NOAA office was living the good life on their dime.

NOAA officials used the boat for the following: trips to dockside restaurants; hamburger and hotdog BBQs and alcohol-fueled parties and with family and friends; and “pleasure cruises” at high rates of speed, with beer consumed on-board.

Even though federal rules ban non-employees from being on vessels, a NOAA supervisor even told a subordinate that his wife was welcome to “kick back and watch TV” on the boat.

They filed expense reports and reimbursed themselves for these trips.

What excuse did NOAA employees give for this behavior?  They needed to do all these things to maintain the recreational appearance of this “undercover” boat that was never even used for the “undercover” work that it was supposedly purchased for. 

Mr. President, let’s be honest.  A booze cruise is a booze cruise.

One NOAA officer decided to take his family on a weekend trip to a posh resort.  He took the undercover NOAA party boat to get there, but he was untrained in how to operate it and blew out a $30,000 engine. Rather than turn back and write the taxpayers a check, he simply abandoned it and took a marked NOAA law enforcement boat the rest of the way to their resort.  Nothing could get between this NOAA employee and a good time. When asked about that incident, the NOAA employee lied to the IG and said there was no family on board. That was just one of many instances of NOAA employees deliberately misleading the IG.

Another NOAA officer used the undercover NOAA boat to take his wife to lunch in Seattle. On this trip, the boat engines stalled in a shipping lane because the boat ran out of fuel due to another operator error. The guy didn’t know how to switch the tanks. So they were stuck drifting in a dangerous shipping lane. The officer and his wife apparently found the situation comical.  Well I don’t think that the fishermen in New Bedford are laughing. 

Again – the money that belonged to fishermen was paying for all this.

To this day, Mr. President, no one has been held accountable. Let me repeat. No one has been disciplined, fired, or even reprimanded for anything having to do with this boat. As you’ve seen here today, NOAA has a culture of corruption that has created a chasm of distrust between the agency and the fishing industry. 

Here is a list of all the problems I have encountered with NOAA since coming to the Senate: abusive treatment of fishermen, resulting in decimation of the fleet; investigations motivated by money; improper fines, leading to foreclosure and bankruptcy; “shredding parties” destroying 75%-80% of OLE documents; lying to Inspector General investigators; discouraging cooperation with the Inspector General; misleading Members of Congress; $300,000 party boat purchased with fishermen’s fines; $12,000 in party boat expenses paid with fishermen’s fines; $30,000 engine destroyed by NOAA employee on weekend vacation while using “undercover” NOAA craft.

This is simply unacceptable. This needs to change, and accountability starts at the top. NOAA’s leadership needs to change.

I am calling once more for President Obama to fire NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco.

If not now, when? If not for this, then for what?

Our fishermen and the American taxpayers deserve better from their Federal Government.

Scott Brown is my Senator. I don’t always agree with his votes, but I have to admit that he is living up to his pledge of going to Washington to represent the common man. He is absolutely right on this issue. I will be working to re-elect him in 2012 because I believe he truly represents the common man and the American taxpayer.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why We Don’t Need Obamacare

Posted on by

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal posted an article detailing how much healthcare costs have risen in America during the decade of 2000 to 2010.

The article reports:

New data show that health spending over the past several years has been normalizing toward the rate of general inflation, rather than growing higher and higher, as had been the case almost continuously since the 1970s. This moderation in the growth rate of spending predates the national recession. And it puts the lie to the claim that we need government to put the brakes on an “out-of-control” health-care system.

As the graph nearby shows, the growth rate of national health expenditures, according to data compiled by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has been moderating since 2002.

[Kleinke]

The chart shows that all of the hype about runaway healthcare costs was simply political hype.

J. D. Kleinke, who wrote the article, has the solution for fixing healthcare in America:

But we know that this slow, steady moderation in health-care spending is good news. True, it is not fast enough. But the decade-long trendline shows the way toward good policy for the future. If we really want to tame the health-care cost beast and make insurance “affordable,” we would double down on all of the positive developments.

We would liberate people with their own money from layer upon layer of arcane, localized insurance rules. We would fix the tax code to uncouple health insurance from employment and let people purchase their own mix of services and coverage. And we would let them do so in a competitive, national market just like with auto insurance—instead of holding them hostage in fragmented, local markets while shaking down their employers to subsidize a system that wants desperately to change itself.

The bottom line here is simple–people do a better job of spending their own money than the government does. Taking the government bureaucracy out of healthcare will make it more available and less expensive for everyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Think About As Gas Prices Climb

Posted on by

Part of the cause of the rise in gasoline prices is increased tension in the Middle East. Part of the rise is caused by the fact that America is not energy independent and we are at the mercy of things we can’t control. One of the ways to solve that problem would be to become energy independent. Alternative energy may be part of that solution, but right now the technology is such that more carbon-based energy is the current answer. The Keystone Pipeline would have helped and more hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has helped. However, there is a movement among the radical environmentalists to shut down fracking. That movement is not based on scientific evidence.

Hot Air posted a story today about a university study on fracking.

The article reports:

The hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to develop natural gas has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, according to a study released Feb. 16 by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.

The study reported that many problems blamed on hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.

University researchers also concluded that many reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater produced from shale gas drilling, rather than from hydraulic fracturing, Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director, said in a statement.

“These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” he said.

The article also points out that fracking takes place hundreds, if not thousands, of feet below the aquifer. Hydrocarbons are naturally found in the water in areas where there is a high presence of shale oil–that’s why they drill there! The development of shale oil resources in America will provide jobs (the current unemployment rate in North Dakota is 3.3%) and move us toward energy independence. If the technology in green energy moves forward, that would be wonderful, but it isn’t there yet.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Exactly Where Are Our Priorities ?

Posted on by

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power LIne posted an article entitled, “If A Tree Falls In the Senate Budget Committee Hearing Room…” It was the most accurate news article I have seen in a long time.

Mr. Hinderaker points out:

…Obama’s acting OMB Director, Jeffrey Zients, appeared before the Senate and House Budget Committees to defend the budget and encountered rough sledding. Among other things, Senator Jeff Sessions asked Zients whether the president’s budget increases spending compared with current law, and Zients was unable or unwilling to answer the question. You know that Tim Geithner followed Zients to the Senate Budget Committee hearing room, and he, too, was unable to say whether Obama’s budget increases federal spending. (It does, both in comparison with current law, as represented by the Budget Control Act, and in absolute terms, by 46% from FY FY 2012 to FY 2021.) You know that the administration’s claim that its budget contains $2.50 in spending cuts for every dollar in tax increases is ridiculous. You know that, despite his confusion on other points, Geithner testified for the second year in a row that President Obama’s budget is “unsustainable.”

This needs to be shouted from the rooftops! We are headed in the direction of bankruptcy and riots in the streets. So what are we talking about–Rich Santorum and his views on birth control.

The article further reports:

I searched three leading liberal newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times: neither the New York Times nor the L.A. Times had run a single story about the Congressional hearings on the FY 2013 budget. The Post had done only slightly better; it failed to report on Zeintz’s testimony and, while it did run a short item on Geithner’s Budget Committee appearance, it failed to note either his admission that Obama’s budget is unsustainable or his inability to say whether the budget increases spending.

Americans who rely on traditional news sources have no idea what is going on. No wonder the President’s approval ratings are still good!

The lack of information getting to the voting public is a danger to the future of our country. It’s a shame that the major media does not realize that when it all collapses, they will be included in the collapse.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Really Doesn’t Sound Like A Plan

Posted on by

Hot Air posted a video today of some of the Congressional hearings on the President’s proposed budget. The clip they posted is of Paul Ryan asking United States Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner what the President’s budget does to help end future deficit spending. I strongly suggest that you follow the link and watch the video.

There is a great quote in the video:

Geithner states, “We’re not coming before you today to say that we have a definitive solution to the long term problem, what we do know is we don’t like yours.”

In other words, why, no, our new budget does nothing to address America’s long-term fiscal crisis.

If our current administration is not willing to address America’s long-term fiscal crisis, let’s elect an administration that will be.

Enhanced by Zemanta

He Who Conrols The Language Controls The Debate

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted an article today at The Corner at National Review about the recent mandate issued by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius regarding health insurance, contraception, and abortion. Mr. McCarthy points out that conservatives are letting the left control the language and thus the debate, a fact which obscures what is actually taking place.

The left has stated that religious organizations want to deny coverage for birth control. That is not the issue. Birth control is unbelievably cheap in this country–it doesn’t need to be free. The issue is whether the state has the power to make people who are morally or religiously opposed to abortion or birth control pay for abortion and birth control for the people who use those services.

Mr. McCarthy further points out:

Second, how dare the administration propose compromises and safe-harbors for “religious organizations”? I imagine they dare because the usual useful idiots (see, e.g., Michael Gerson, cited in Ramesh’s post Tuesday) are, as ever, warning conservatives not to “overreach” — this time, for exemptions that extend beyond corporate religious entities. The Bill of Rights, however, protects individual liberty from abusive government action. The First Amendment does not merely protect the religious liberty of groups of people who formally organize as a religious enterprise. It protects the individual believer, who has as much right as the Archdiocese of New York to resist government compulsion that violates his conscience. Under the Left’s First Amendment, we’re supposed to be deferential to every Saudi alien Islamic supremacist whack-job who wants to replace the Constitution with sharia, but an American citizen who personally objects to abortifacients should pipe down and pay up unless he’s the CEO of Catholic Charities? I don’t think so. 

This is a religious freedom issue–not a contraception issue.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Sort Of Logic Almost Earned Me An F In Geometry

Posted on by

The Daily Caller posted an article on some of the recent testimony of  U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Mr. Holder was testifying on the subject of Operation Fast and Furious, but his testimony included the following statement:

This administration has consistently favored the reinstitution of the assault weapons ban. It is something that we think was useful in the past with regard to the reduction that we’ve seen in crime, and certainly would have a positive impact on our relationship and the crime situation in Mexico.

This is an amazing statement. It is becoming very obvious that the Obama Administration (including Eric Holder) purposely allowed large numbers of guns to flow into Mexico illegally. Now the Attorney General is saying that stricter gun laws would help our relationship with Mexico and reduce crime in Mexico. Wait a minute! The guns that went into Mexico went in illegally–more laws won’t do any good if no one is willing to follow them (particularly the government). The problem with gun laws is that only law-abiding citizens follow them–criminals don’t. Adding more gun laws simply disarms the general population making them more vulnerable to assault by those with illegal guns. Maybe the answer is better enforcement of the laws we currently have.
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Undefending America

Posted on by
The MIRV U.S. Peacekeeper missile, with the re...

Image via Wikipedia

Bill Gertz is well known for his books and articles on national defense. He posted an article yesterday at the Washington Free Beacon yesterday about the impact of President Obama’s policies on national security.

The article states:

President Obama has ordered the Pentagon to consider cutting U.S. strategic nuclear forces to as low as 300 deployed warheads—below the number believed to be in China’s arsenal and far fewer than current Russian strategic warhead stocks.

Pentagon and military planners were asked to develop three force levels for the U.S. arsenal of deployed strategic nuclear warheads: a force of 1,100 to 1,000 warheads; a second scenario of between 700 and 800 warheads; and the lowest level of between 300 and 400 warheads.

A congressional official said no president in the past ever told the Pentagon to conduct a review based on specific numbers of warheads.

This review is not based on world conditions, as in the past, but simply on numbers. According the the article, the drastic cuts have come under fire from senior military leaders, but there have been no public comments.

One retired Air Force General commented:

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney said even considering such deep strategic cuts is irrational.

“No sane military leader would condone 300 to 400 warheads for an effective nuclear deterrent strategy,” McInerney (Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney) told the Washington Free Beacon.

“Going down to 1000 to 1,100 is risky enough and frankly in today’s world, very risky. The purpose of our nuclear force structure is to deter any adversary from even thinking that they could minimize our attack options. Such thinking is very dangerous and will only encourage our adversaries to make bold decisions.”

A congressional official and former administration official familiar with the ongoing review said the bottom level warhead levels raise serious questions about whether a nuclear force that size would deter adversaries. It also would raise questions about so-called “extended deterrence,” the threat to use nuclear weapons against states like North Korea on behalf of allies like Japan.

The new strategic review reflects the president’s 2009 speech in Prague when he said the United States would pursue peace and security in a world “without nuclear weapons.”

I too would like to see a world without nuclear weapons, but I would also like to see a world where America is ready and able to defend herself and her friends.

The article concludes with the following comment:

Kenneth deGraffenreid, a former Reagan administration National Security Council official, said in an interview that the plans for sharp nuclear cuts are “part of the administration’s purposeful decline of American military power.”

The damage to nuclear forces is compounded by “massive reductions across the board in defense spending on conventional forces,” he said.

“Defense is the only part of government this administration is reducing,” he said. “There wasn’t a single dollar of stimulus money spent on defense.”

It’s time to elect a President who will defend America–both verbally and physically.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Roots Of Islamic Antisemitism

Posted on by

Andrew G. Bostom spoke tonight in Stoughton, Massachusetts, on the roots of Islamic Antisemitism. He described his developing interest in the subject after the events on September 11, 2001. He then chronicled the history of Islamic Antisemitism going back to the beginnings of the Muslim religion. In his book, The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism, Mr. Bostom gives a detailed account of the roots and development of Antisemitism within Islam.

Mr. Bostom’s lecture was summed up in a story he told about an experiment he did which showed the misconceptions most scholars, theologians, and journalists have about Antisemitism. He sent e-mails to a variety of academics, scholars, journalists, etc., asking the following question:

“In your opinion, would this quote (below) exemplify racial, or at least ethnic Antisemitism? Moreover would you please hazard a guess as to where and when it was written, based upon the contents?” Here is the quote:

Our people [the Muslims] observing thus the occupations of the Jews and the Christians concluded that the religion of the Jews must compare unfavorably as do their professions, and that their unbelief must be the foulest of all, since they are the filthiest of all nations. Why the Christians, ugly as they are, are physically less repulsive than the Jews may be explained by the fact that the Jews, by not intermarrying, have intensified the offensiveness of their features. Exotic elements have not mingled with them; neither have males of alien races had intercourse with their women, nor have their men cohabited with females of a foreign stock. The Jewish race therefore has been denied high mental qualities, sound physique, and superior lactation. The same results obtain when horses, camels, donkeys, and pigeons are inbred.
 
He read some of the answers he got back:
 
“Of course it’s Antisemitism of the most vile racist stripe-which leads me to think it likely dates from the 19th century, at the earliest.  It also sounds like the sort of thing one would read in the  Antisemitic popular literature of the Edwardian period.  So, my guess would be somewhere between 1830 and the 1920s.”  
“I imagine this was written under the influence of modern theories of racial inferiority.”
“If I had to hazard a guess, I would say this is from a sermon in a Gaza mosque this past Friday..”
“Could be any mosque in the Muslim world, or Nazi Germany if it weren’t for the first line. Definitely racial…”
“How about current Wahhabi establishment?”
“I have no idea who said it but I’ll hazard a guess just for sport: the Mufti of Jerusalem, circa 1940?”
“Probably last week from one of the mullahs in the UK.”
“Yes, racist to the point of being Nazi-like. I would say, the Mufti of Jerusalem or some other Islamofascist, or maybe contemporary Wahhabi.”
“…it’s the usual (modern) boiler plate from the Middle East.”
 
Unfortunately, the quote represents much more history than the responders gave it credit for.
 
Mr. Bostom wrote an article for the American Thinker in May 2008 in which he explains:
 
The quote in fact derives from a remarkable essay by the polymath Arabic writer al-Jahiz (d. 869), illustrating the anti-Jewish attitudes prevalent within an important early Islamic society, and composed over a millennium earlier than suspected by these interlocutors. It is also worth noting that al-Jahiz (described as a “skeptic,” who harbored “indifferent views toward religion in general”) included sociological observations-the quote cited above-which reveal the interface between indigenous ethnic/racial discriminatory, and Islamic religious (i.e., the essay’s major emphasis, described below) attitudes towards Jews, expressed a thousand years before any secular Western European Antisemitic ideologies would be exported to the Muslim Near East
 
The bottom line in the information tonight was that Antisemitism among Muslims is not a new thing. It goes back to the roots of Islam and is taught to the children as part of the Koran. The only way to end Antisemitism in Islam is to stop teaching the Koran to Muslim children, and I don’t think that is likely to happen.
 
 
 
 
 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Thought Only Bullies Stole Children’s Lunches

Posted on by

A website sponsored by the North Carolina Civitas Institute posted a story today about a Pre-K program in West Hoke Elementary School in Raeford where all of the students’ lunches were inspected by a government inspector for content.

One child was allowed to eat the lunch her mother had packed but was given cafeteria food because the lunch did not meet the inspector’s standard. The child’s lunch contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. The nutrition standards for pre-K lunch require milk, two servings of fruit or vegetable, bread or grains and a meat or meat alternative.

The article explains:

The mother says the girl was so intimidated by the inspection process that she was too scared to eat all of her homemade lunch. The girl ate only the chicken nuggets provided to her by the school, so she still didn’t eat a vegetable.

The mother says her daughter doesn’t like vegetables and – like most four year olds – will only eat them at home under close supervision.

The article reports:

The government inspector was from the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised program at the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The program gives schools a grade based on standards that include USDA meal guidelines enforced by the N.C. Division of Early Childhood Development.

The nutrition standards for pre-K lunch require milk, two servings of fruit or vegetable, bread or grains and a meat or meat alternative. The school didn’t receive a high grade from the January assessment because the home-made lunches didn’t meet those  guidelines. The mother points out the only thing on that list her daughter’s home lunch didn’t have was milk, so she doesn’t understand why the girl was given a complete school meal as a supplement.

When did any state or federal government get the right to go through a four-year old’s lunch bag. What constitution gives this authority? This is obscene!

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Very Nasty Game Of Chess

Posted on by

CNS News reported the following yesterday:

A top Muslim Brotherhood official has warned that any cuts in U.S. aid to Egypt could affect Cairo’s peace treaty with Israel – the latest sign that Egypt’s emerging political forces intend to call Washington’s bluff over the diplomatic dispute triggered by a crackdown on non-governmental organizations. 

When America has a President who is perceived as weak, bad things happen. This is an example.

At present 16 Americans and 27 other people working for Non-government organizations that promote democracy are being held in Egypt awaiting trial.

This is called blackmail. The Muslim Brotherhood has made it clear since they began seizing power in Egypt that the treaty with Israel was signed by a government that was no longer in power and would be reviewed.

Unfortunately this is a lose-lose situation for America because of the way the Obama Administration has handled the Middle East since President Obama took office. The President has consistently put pressure on Israel to make concession to those who want to destroy it, and has created doubt in the governments of the countries surrounding Israel as to whether or not America would come to Israel’s defense if needed. The only way to end this blackmail is to tell Egypt in no uncertain terms that any attack on Israel will be regarded as an attack on America and will be responded to as such. Any breaking of the treaty with Israel for whatever reason will be regarded as an act of war. Then we need to stand behind what we say. Unfortunately, in the Obama Administration that will never happen–we will be blackmailed again.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tonight In Stoughton, Massachusetts

Posted on by

AN EVENING WITH ANDREW BOSTOM

“Understanding the Islam in Muslim Jew Hatred”

 February 14th at

7:30 PM

 Ahavath Torah Congregation

1179 Central Street

Stoughton, MA 02072

 Suggested Donation: $5

 Dr. Bostom will demonstrate Anti-Semitism in the Muslim world—from the 7th century advent of Islam, through the contemporary era—is rooted in the foundational texts of Islam itself.

 Dr. Andrew G. Bostom is the author of the highly acclaimed books The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims, and The Legacy of Islamic Anti-Semitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History.

 Dr. Bostom has published numerous articles and commentaries on Islam in The New York Post, The Daily News, Washington Times, National Review Online, Pajamas Media, American Thinker, FrontPage Magazine.com, Big Peace, and other print and online publications.

 Dr. Bostom speaks on topics related to jihad, the threat of Shariah Law’s encroachment on Western societies, Islam’s treatment of non-Muslim minorities in general, and Islamic Jew-hatred in particular.

    For information email office@atorah.org

Co-sponsored by Christians and Jews United for Israel, ACT Boston, ACT Framingham, Rabbis and Ministers for Israel

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Serious Problem For The Future Of Free Speech

Posted on by

Yesterday Frank Gaffney, Jr., at the Center For Security Policy posted an article about the arrest of a Saudi newspaper columnist named Hamza Kashgari in Malaysia.

The article reports:

A Saudi newspaper columnist named Hamza Kashgari was detained in Malaysia, reportedly on the basis of an alert by the International Criminal Police Organization, better known as Interpol.  Reuters quotes a Malaysian police spokesman as saying that, “This arrest was part of an Interpol operation which the Malaysian police were a part of.” It was apparently mounted in response to a “red notice” (or request for help apprehending an individual) issued by Saudi Arabia.  Kashgari was then sent back to Saudi Arabia where he faces almost certain death.

Mr. Kashgari’s crime?  He criticized the founder of Islam, Mohammed, on his Twitter account.  According to press he reports, he addressed the man Muslims call theProphet directly, writing: “ I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you. There is a lot I don’t understand about you….I will not pray for you.”  

The troubling part of this is that Interpol played a part in the arrest. Interpol is supposed to protect human rights and free speech.

The article further reports:

An Interpol spokesman insists that his organization had nothing to do with Hamza Kashgari’s apprehension in Malaysia and involuntary return to Saudi Arabia.  What is clear at this point is that the Saudis sought help apprehending the man who fled their not-so-tender mercies.  It seems likely that the Saudi red notice to Interpol provided the Malays a pretext for intercepting and extraditing a columnist who dared to exercise free speech.

So what–I live in America, what has this got to do with me? Well:

After all, in a December 2009 executive order unveiled on a Friday afternoon in the run-up to the Christmas holidays, President Obama issued Executive Order 13524.  It amended an earlier order by President Reagan that conferred on Interpol some – but not all – of the privileges of a foreign diplomatic mission.  

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and one of the finest legal minds and essayists of our time, wrote on the occasion that Obama’s amendments would have the effect of establishing here “an international police force immune from the restraints of American law.”  He added that, thanks to the Obama executive order:

“This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States.”

Are you worried yet?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Giving Money To The Rich At The Expense Of The Poor

Posted on by

No, I am not about to support the class warfare that President Obama is planning to use to win a second term in the White House. What I am referring to is the fact that under the budget suggested by President Obama government subsidies for people who purchase a Chevy Volt will be raised to $10,000 while the scholarship program in Washington, D.C. will be eliminated.

Hot Air posted a story yesterday on the budget.

Speaking of the D. C. Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP), the article states:

Enrollment increased 60 percent last year, with parents “rushing” to sign their kids up, after the new GOP House renewed the program for five years. That’s the good news — since Congress is likely to become redder this fall, the GOP will be able to force a penny-ante budgetary matter like this on Obama even if he’s reelected. The bad news is that O is so deeply captive to public-school teachers’ unions that he’d rather risk the optics of canceling a school-choice program for poor kids knowing that it’ll end up in the budget anyway than embrace it and anger his PEU cronies. Loathsome.

Meanwhile, people who can afford a $50,000 car will get a tax break which will cost the government $100 million each year if it is approved by Congress, presuming only 10,000 new-technology autos are sold each year.

This is another example of the Obama Administration telling Americans what to buy. It is a political move designed to shore up environmental support for President Obama in an election year. Meanwhile, the students in Washington, D.C. are tossed aside.

I think this President has his priorities backwards.

Enhanced by Zemanta