Get Your Hands Off My Coca-Cola

Yesterday the New York Times reported that New York Mayor Bloomberg is planning to ban the sale of large sodas and other sugary drinks at restaurants, movie theaters and street carts. This is part of the Mayor’s effort to combat obesity.

The article reports:

The proposed ban would affect virtually the entire menu of popular sugary drinks found in delis, fast-food franchises and even sports arenas, from energy drinks to pre-sweetened iced teas. The sale of any cup or bottle of sweetened drink larger than 16 fluid ounces — about the size of a medium coffee, and smaller than a common soda bottle — would be prohibited under the first-in-the-nation plan, which could take effect as soon as next March.

Diet drinks are not included in this ban.

The article includes an interesting statement by the Mayor:

He also said he foresaw no adverse effect on local businesses, and he suggested that restaurants could simply charge more for smaller drinks if their sales were to drop.


At this point in the article I would like to point out that Mayor Bloomberg is pro-choice. If asked, he would explain that the government does not have the right to interfere with woman’s healthcare. This is the same man who is intent on passing laws allowing the government to tell us what we can drink. I think the inconsistency in those two views is amazing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Choosing Your Financial Advisor

Most people over the age of twenty have realized that Social Security will not be there when they retire. Many of the younger generation have already been planning for this by setting up 401K plans, IRA’s and other ways to finance their retirement. One important aspect of this planning is choosing a competent financial advisor. As the presidential election approaches, who would you choose are your financial advisor–Barack Obama or Mitt Romney.

Marc Thiessen at the Washington Post posted some information last week that might make that choice easier. In recent days the President has been attacking Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital, stating that it is a record of wealth creation–not job growth. Keep in mind that Bain Capital works with money volutarily put under their control by investors who invest in the company in order to make money. When the investors make money, they spend it or further invest it and the economy grows. Let’s contrast that with how the Obama Administration has invested taxpayer money in various companies.

The article points out:

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures:

The article lists some of the Obama Administrations investments:

Raser Technologies–The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

ECOtality–According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.”

Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP)–its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’ ”

There are more examples in the article, but you get the picture. This reminds me of a story from my youth. During the time my family lived in North Carolina, we went to Florida for a vacation. During that vacation, my parents went to a dog race. As the dogs were marching around the track before the race, my father spotted one he was convinced was a winner. He placed a small bet on the dog. Not only did the dog not win–he refused to leave the starting gate. My father always said that it was because the dog was simply too smart to chase a mechanical rabbit. The moral of the story is, “Don’t place a bet unless you have some idea of what you are doing.” The Obama Administration has a record of placing bets with taxpayer and stimulus money on companies that are not capable of leaving the starting gate. Is this an appropriate role for government, and if it is, shouldn’t they be doing it better?

The article does not mention the jobs lost in the government takeover of General Motors–the dealerships put out of business, the mechanics and other workers in those dealerships.

Considering their track record, do you want the government to continue to make investments with your money?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Better Late Than Never

On August 22, 2010, CBN terrorist correspondent Erick Stakelbeck posted a story at CBN about a mega-mosque to be built in Murfreesboro, Tennessee. The town residents were concerned because they were not given proper notification of the building plans in the prescribed manner which would have allowed public debate.

The article reports:

“Within 17 days they had approval to build this mosque, when there are other large congregations here in the community who, some took as much as a year and a half to get the approval to build onto their facilities,” said local activist Laurie Cardoza-Moore, who is president of the pro-Israel group, Proclaiming Justice to the Nations.

As someone who lives in a small town, I can’t image any local government ruling body getting anything done in 17 days–for a construction project that size, you need public hearings, zoning board meetings, and other legalistic-sounding things.

The CBN article also reports:

The County commission is now taking a second look at local residents’ concerns about the mosque project, including the environmental impact and traffic flow that would result.

There are also complaints about an unmarked grave that has appeared on the Islamic Center‘s new property.

“We don’t know anything about the body other than it was wrapped–it’s not in a casket, it’s not embalmed, it’s not in a vault,” said local activist Kevin Fisher.

Mosque officials told us they know who is buried there, but did not give us a name. Mayor Burgess said. “The burial was legal.

But others say it’s further proof that a massive Islamic center is not a good fit in their community.

Today CBN News posted a follow-up article on the mosque.

The article at CBN today states:

The judge threw out a county commission’s ruling approving the construction on the grounds that the public wasn’t properly notified of a planning meeting.

The article reports that construction on the mosque is well underway, and that the builders will have to seek another approval from the county commission.

It is unfortunate that construction on the mosque has already begun, but it also sounds as if there are some serious questions as to whether the builders followed the proper route in getting approval for their project. If Islam were simply another religion, I don’t think there would be a problem, but there is a political and legal aspect of Islam that is incompatible with the U. S. Constitution. Another problem here is the source of the money to finance this project. The majority of mosques in America are financed with money from Saudi Arabia, where the official state religion is radical Wahhabi Islam. Radical Islam is not something we want to import into middle America.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Is This Something You Want Your Tax Dollars Supporting ?

This is a YouTube video filmed by a group called Live Action:

The video shows a Planned Parenthood Worker in Austin, Texas, encouraging a woman to have an abortion because the women is pregnant with a girl and wants to have a boy. The story is also posted at

Breitbart reports:

The video is first in a new series titled “Gendercide: Sex-Selection in America,” exposing the practice of sex-selective abortion in the United States and how Planned Parenthood and the rest of the abortion industry facilitate the selective elimination of baby girls in the womb.

As the mother of three daughters, this hits home for me. My daughters have all been unbelievable blessings in my life (as have their children). I would not trade any of them for a son. I can understand the emphasis on having sons in some countries where women do not have the opportunities for success that women in America have, but that is not an excuse for murder in any country, much less in America. If Planned Parenthood is aiding women in killing their babies because the children are the wrong sex, it is time to stop using taxpayer money to fund planned parenthood.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Post From Erick Erickson

Erick Erickson is the blogger at Redstate. He recently covered the story of Speedway Bomber and current left-wing activist Brett Kimberlin, who the media has chosen to ignore.

This is his post today:

Last week I wrote about the Speedway Bomber and current left-wing activist Brett Kimberlin. In 2011, after writing about Kimberlin, LA County Prosecutor Patrick Frey was rousted out of bed after midnight by the LA County SWAT Team. Someone had called 911 claiming to be Frey saying he’d just murdered his wife.

Sunday night as my family and sister’s family were around the dinner table and playing outside, sheriff’s deputies pulled into my driveway responding to an accidental shooting at my home.

One deputy was in the driveway. Another blocked the end of the driveway with his car. A neighbor tells me another was up the hill from the house.

There was no shooting at my home. Someone called 911, claimed to be at my home, and claimed to witness a shooting at my home.

As the one deputy and I spoke, the other deputy walked up the driveway, positioned himself behind the car in the driveway, and kept his eyes on me and his hand on his gun. My three year old ran between us all thinking it was so cool to have a police car in the driveway with its blue lights flashing.

Luckily, after I had starting writing about Kimberlin, I advised the Sheriff’s Department to be aware this could happen.

It was a prank, but not just any prank. This is a prank left-wing activists are increasingly deploying against those who dissent from their political views. When Barack Obama told his supporters in 2008 to bring guns to knife fights, some of his supporters took him more literally than I assume he intended.

The stories of what is happening are not getting much traction outside of right-of-center blogs and the occasional opinion column at the Wall Street Journal, D.C. Examiner, and Washington Times.

The Obama campaign set up a website listing major donors to a Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney. Naturally, individuals listed by the Obama campaign saw their lives turned upside down by investigators linked to Democratic opposition research firms. They, their families, their businesses, and their employees were harassed. Seemingly random people from random states started requesting old court case files involving the donors.

It was intimidation.

And now this. Brett Kimberlin has created several organizations that have gotten money from the Tides Foundation and other organizations. Kimberlin spent many years in prison, convicted of a series of bombings in Speedway, Indiana. Now, when conservatives start pointing out his past and his ties, they have been subject to swatting and other forms of bullying.

We do not live in a Banana Republic, but the left does not seem to care. I take my family’s swatting as a badge of honor. We are having an impact. It is very necessary though that we continue to speak up and not be silenced.

The activities of these people suggest one thing clearly — they are losing. We must ensure they do.

These are things we need to remember in November.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The War In Burma

Michael Yon recently posted an article about the war in Burma. I will admit that I was not really aware that there was a war in Burma, and when I googled it, there was not much available. The New Republic posted an article on May 21, but that was pretty much all I could find.

The war in Burma is a civil war that has been going on for 63 years. The post at Michael Yon’s website has pictures of what is currently happening. This is one of the pictures from Michael’s website:


Michael talks about the group in the picture:

In Thailand, I continue to come into contact with a group called Free Burma Rangers [FBR], who are based in the northern Thai city of Chiang Mai.  FBR is an American faith-based operation operated by Dave Eubank, a former Army Ranger and Special Forces officer.  In these parts, Eubank is something of a living-legend.  He speaks English, Thai and Karen and has spent years inside Burma.

I often bump up against his organization.   It has a solid feel.  FBR seems on the surface and from all accounts to consist of serious people doing important work: training guerrillas in medicine, reconnaissance and other military matters, while documenting endless war crimes inside of Burma.  FBR receives no help, to my knowledge, from the Thai or US governments.

Please follow the links to both articles about this war. It does seem odd that no one in the American media is reporting on what is going on in Burma.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The Politics Of American Energy Independence

English: Cropped portion of image from USGS re...

English: Cropped portion of image from USGS report showing extent of Marcellus Formation shale (in gray shading). (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Yesterday’s Washington Times posted a story about a Marcellus Shale gas-drilling study released earlier this month by the State University of New York at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute. 

The article reports:

Released earlier this month, the report concludes that Pennsylvania regulators have done an effective job cutting down on environmental incidents within the state’s burgeoning natural-gas industry, a sector driven almost entirelyby hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the controversial practice of using water, sand and chemicals to crack deep underground rock and release huge quantities of natural gas.

Its authors, including SUNY-Buffalo employee and institute Director John P. Martin, have come under increasing fire from critics who say they’ve spun figures from Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection in order to cast a favorable light on fracking and the companies that employ it.

Fracking is the technique that will give America access to its vast natural gas resources, which could easily lead to energy independence for America. It is opposed by radical environmentalists who want to turn to renewable sources of energy rather than carbon based sources. Unfortunately, our current economy is based on carbon sources and barring some miracle fuel invented in the private sector (where free market forces can allow the competition to determine the best product), an abrupt transition to green energy would be very cumbersome and painful for all Americans.

The article further reports:

Only 25 of the 845 environmental events in Pennsylvania from 2008 through August 2011 were considered “major” incidents. They included land spills, site-restoration failures and well blowouts.

Critics contend that the study glosses over the fact that the number of major events shot up from one in 2008 to 10 in 2011. As a percentage of wells drilled, that equates to 0.6 events per 1,000 wells in 2008, and 0.8 events per 1,000 wells drilled in 2011.

All forms of energy have risks and downsides–I reported on April 30 that a recent study showed that windmills cause global warming ( We know that windmills are a danger to certain birds. Man has been looking for the perpetual motion machine for a long time. It doesn’t exist–either in machine form or in energy form. Energy independence is a national security issue as well as an environmental issue. It’s time to grow up, face the facts, and get on with making America energy independent.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Guest Post From A Local Pastor

“No greater love has no one than this, that one lay down His life for His friends.” 
                                                                                                            Jesus Christ (John 15:13)
            Since our revolution many American men and women have sacrificed their lives for the sake of the freedom of this country.  As Thomas Paine wrote in The Crisis, “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; and he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”  Memorial day is a great opportunity to reflect upon those who have given their lives for the sake of our country and give thanks to God for their sacrifice that has maintained our freedoms.  May their death that they died for you not be in vain. 
            But perhaps a greater Memorial Day ought to be celebrated every day in recognizing the death of Jesus Christ who died on behalf of those whom He loved.  This death He died in order to purchase freedom from sin for all who would place their trust in Him.  He didn’t die for country; He didn’t die for friends.  He died for those who were actively His enemies.  He prayed for those who nailed Him to the cross.  He willingly gave Himself up.  He said that no one took His life away but He willingly gave it so that He might bear your sin and liberate you from its bondage.  If you have never celebrated Memorial Day in this way, take a moment to call upon the name of the Lord and ask God to give you the gift of eternal life through the death of His Son Jesus Christ and then praise God for the new found liberty and freedom that is yours through the gift He paid for by His death.  May the death He died for you not be in vain. 
Dave Meunier, Pastor, Plainville Baptist Church, Plainville, MA
(John 4:34)
Enhanced by Zemanta

President Reagan’s Memorial Day 1986 Remarks

My source for this is

Today is the day we put aside to remember fallen heroes and to pray that no heroes will ever have to die for us again. It’s a day of thanks for the valor of others, a day to remember the splendor of America and those of her children who rest in this cemetery and others. It’s a day to be with the family and remember.

I was thinking this morning that across the country children and their parents will be going to the town parade and the young ones will sit on the sidewalks and wave their flags as the band goes by. Later, maybe, they’ll have a cookout or a day at the beach. And that’s good, because today is a day to be with the family and to remember.

Arlington, this place of so many memories, is a fitting place for some remembering. So many wonderful men and women rest here, men and women who led colorful, vivid, and passionate lives. There are the greats of the military: Bull Halsey and the Admirals Leahy, father and son; Black Jack Pershing; and the GI’s general, Omar Bradley. Great men all, military men. But there are others here known for other things.

Here in Arlington rests a sharecropper’s son who became a hero to a lonely people. Joe Louis came from nowhere, but he knew how to fight. And he galvanized a nation in the days after Pearl Harbor when he put on the uniform of his country and said, “I know we’ll win because we’re on God’s side.” Audie Murphy is here, Audie Murphy of the wild, wild courage. For what else would you call it when a man bounds to the top of a disabled tank, stops an enemy advance, saves lives, and rallies his men, and all of it single-handedly. When he radioed for artillery support and was asked how close the enemy was to his position, he said, “Wait a minute and I’ll let you speak to them.” [Laughter]

Michael Smith is here, and Dick Scobee, both of the space shuttle Challenger. Their courage wasn’t wild, but thoughtful, the mature and measured courage of career professionals who took prudent risks for great reward—in their case, to advance the sum total of knowledge in the world. They’re only the latest to rest here; they join other great explorers with names like Grissom and Chaffee.

Oliver Wendell Holmes is here, the great jurist and fighter for the right. A poet searching for an image of true majesty could not rest until he seized on “Holmes dissenting in a sordid age.” Young Holmes served in the Civil War. He might have been thinking of the crosses and stars of Arlington when he wrote: “At the grave of a hero we end, not with sorrow at the inevitable loss, but with the contagion of his courage; and with a kind of desperate joy we go back to the fight.”

All of these men were different, but they shared this in common: They loved America very much. There was nothing they wouldn’t do for her. And they loved with the sureness of the young. It’s hard not to think of the young in a place like this, for it’s the young who do the fighting and dying when a peace fails and a war begins. Not far from here is the statue of the three servicemen—the three fighting boys of Vietnam. It, too, has majesty and more. Perhaps you’ve seen it—three rough boys walking together, looking ahead with a steady gaze. There’s something wounded about them, a kind of resigned toughness. But there’s an unexpected tenderness, too. At first you don’t really notice, but then you see it. The three are touching each other, as if they’re supporting each other, helping each other on.

I know that many veterans of Vietnam will gather today, some of them perhaps by the wall. And they’re still helping each other on. They were quite a group, the boys of Vietnam—boys who fought a terrible and vicious war without enough support from home, boys who were dodging bullets while we debated the efficacy of the battle. It was often our poor who fought in that war; it was the unpampered boys of the working class who picked up the rifles and went on the march. They learned not to rely on us; they learned to rely on each other. And they were special in another way: They chose to be faithful. They chose to reject the fashionable skepticism of their time. They chose to believe and answer the call of duty. They had the wild, wild courage of youth. They seized certainty from the heart of an ambivalent age; they stood for something.

And we owe them something, those boys. We owe them first a promise: That just as they did not forget their missing comrades, neither, ever, will we. And there are other promises. We must always remember that peace is a fragile thing that needs constant vigilance. We owe them a promise to look at the world with a steady gaze and, perhaps, a resigned toughness, knowing that we have adversaries in the world and challenges and the only way to meet them and maintain the peace is by staying strong.

That, of course, is the lesson of this century, a lesson learned in the Sudetenland, in Poland, in Hungary, in Czechoslovakia, in Cambodia. If we really care about peace, we must stay strong. If we really care about peace, we must, through our strength, demonstrate our unwillingness to accept an ending of the peace. We must be strong enough to create peace where it does not exist and strong enough to protect it where it does. That’s the lesson of this century and, I think, of this day. And that’s all I wanted to say. The rest of my contribution is to leave this great place to its peace, a peace it has earned.

Thank all of you, and God bless you, and have a day full of memories.

Why Did The Obama Administration Pick This Fight And What Is It Really About ?

There are three sources for this article–one posted at Hot Air yesterday, one at the American Thinker and one at the Washington Post last week.

Last week 43 Catholic institutions filed lawsuits against the Department of Health and Human Services charging that the ObamaCare abortion pill mandate violates their free exercise of religion rights. 

The Washington Post points out that respect for religious beliefs has always been part of America:

Thomas Jefferson wrote that “no provision in our Constitution ought to be dearer to man than that which protects the rights of conscience against the enterprises of civil authority.”

Indeed, even before the Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776, the Continental Congress passed a resolution in 1775 exempting pacifists from military enlistment:

As there are some people, who, from religious principles, cannot bear arms in any case, this Congress intend no violence to their consciences, but earnestly recommend it to them, to contribute liberally in this time of universal calamity, to the relief of their distressed brethren in the several colonies, and to do all other services to their oppressed Country, which they can consistently with their religious principles.

The Catholic church has been clear and consistent in their opposition to abortion (which is what this is really about) and birth control (being used by the press as a distraction). The Obama Administration understood that when they drafted the mandate requiring the church to carry insurance that paid for both abortion and birth control.

The American Thinker points out the attempt in the law to change the definition of a religious organization:

It makes perfect sense, then, that our primary source of irony is not the free exercise clause, but progressive establishment clause dogma.  For starters, the standard HHS uses to distinguish “secular” from “religious” organizational missions would never pass muster in an establishment clause setting.  According to HHS, it’s the organization’s service to, or employment of, non-Catholics that counts, not its affiliation with the Catholic Church or its devotion to Catholic values.  Kathleen Sebelius might as well have grabbed sixty years of progressive establishment clause dogma by the tongue and flicked it inside out.  The Court’s progressives have spent decades beating it into our heads that precious little — if any — evidence of faith is required to establish a purpose to advance religion — but under the HHS mandate, the “secular” mission magically trumps church affiliation the moment a non-Catholic surgeon is hired or operates on a non-Catholic patient.

This is a total power grab by the Obama Administration. It is an effort to redefine the church as limited to the building where worship services occur. Under the definition of a religious institution in this bill, Jesus’ ministry would not have qualified as religious because he spoke to and helped people of different religious backgrounds. If this law is allowed to stand, it represents a threat to all people of faith–not just Catholics.


Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happens If ObamaCare Is Overturned ?

Last week Investor’s Business Daily asked the question, “What happens if ObamaCare is overturned?” That is a very good question.

It would not be good for Congressional Democrat campaigns–the Democrats spent a year on this bill–were they wasting their time? But what impact would it have on the Presidential campaign? Are there parts of the bill that the public approves of that could be written into law between now and November? Is Congress capable of writing anything into law between now and November?

The article reports:

The KFF survey found that letting 26-year-olds stay on their parents’ policy polled well, with 71% viewing it either very or somewhat favorably. Also polling favorably was prohibiting insurers from denying coverage based on a person’s medical history, 60%, and limiting what insurers can charge older people vs. the young, 52%.

The article then reminds us that these provisions could collapse the insurance market. The thing we need to remember here is that insurance companies are in business to make money. There is nothing immoral about that. If they are allowed to make money, they provide jobs and insurance for people. That’s a good thing. There does need to be some sort of allowance made for a high-risk pool similar to what is done with car insurance, and I would also support something that protects someone from being dropped because they have gotten sick and actually need their health insurance.

What is needed is a fresh start. Such things as insurance portability across state lines, tort reform, and tax breaks for consumers buying individual insurance would be a good beginning. I suspect, however, that any beginning will have to wait until after the November election.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Of The Problems With Government-Controlled Medicine

On Friday, the Daily Caller posted an article explaining one of the hazards of government-controlled medicine. The specific example used in the article was the treatment of macular degeneration, something that affects the elderly and eventually can cause blindness.

The article states:

Regulators around the world continue to debate whether Lucentis or Avastin, a drug developed to treat cancer, should be the preferred treatment for patients suffering from wet age-related macular degeneration, or AMD.
Note: regulators are having this discussion–not patients and doctors.
The article explains:
Because AMD impacts older patients, many American seniors rely on Medicare to cover the cost of their treatments. This is the U.S. government’s underlying basis for involvement and whose authority falls under the new Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) established under the Affordable Care Act.
Thus the government is allowed to determine treatment for AMD. There are two drugs commonly used to treat AMD, Lucentis and Avastin. Lucentis is more expensive than Avastin, and Avastin tends to have more negative side effects. The company that manufactures both drugs has stated that generally Lucentis is the better choice for most patients. The point of the article is that due to cost considerations in Obamacare, patients may no longer be given a choice and may have to settle for the cheaper drug with possible serious side effects.
The article concludes:

An off-label drug may help one patient but not others. But overreaching regulators, with their one-size-fits-all ideology and focus on cost effectiveness rather than medical effectiveness, are a danger to every patient.

We need to remember in November who voted for ObamaCare and make sure they are retired from office. The ObamaCare bill hurts everyone who has a medical need.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Changes In The American Drone Policy

Last week Kimberly Dozier, an Associated Press intelligence writer, posted an article at about recent changes in the American drone policy. The changes alter the process of targeting terrorist leaders for drone attacks that had been in effect since 2009. The changes swap the old military-run review process for a new process which involves consulting the State Department, the Pentagon, and other agencies when compiling a list of drone targets. White House counter-terror chief John Brennan‘s staff oversees the process.

The article reports:

Previously, targets were first discussed in meetings run by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen at the time, with Brennan being just one of the voices in the debate.

The new Joint Chiefs chairman, Gen. Martin Dempsey, has been more focused on shrinking the U.S. military as the Afghan war winds down and less on the covert wars overseas.

With Dempsey less involved, Brennan believed there was an even greater need to draw together different agencies’ viewpoints, showing the American public that al-Qaida targets are chosen only after painstaking and exhaustive debate, the senior administration official said.

But some of the officials carrying out the policy are equally leery of “how easy it has become to kill someone,” one said. The U.S. is targeting al-Qaida operatives for reasons such as being heard in an intercepted conversation plotting to attack a U.S. ambassador overseas, the official said. Stateside, that conversation could trigger an investigation by the Secret Service or FBI.

Defense Department spokesman George Little said the department was “entirely comfortable with the process by which American counterterrorism operations are managed.

The CIA did not respond to a request for comment.

I am not particularly comfortable with the new arrangement. The State Department has different goals than the military, and in the past they have not hesitated to work against the interests of a President they disagreed with philosophically. I also don’t like the idea of putting an unelected, unaccountable civilian person in charge of a military program. We need to remember that the drone program is a targeted assassination program–it is being used to kill terrorists. It also eliminates the possibility of capturing terrorists and gathering intelligence from them.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The Failed Revolution In Egypt

In January of last year, over 50,000 protesters filled Tahrir Square in Egypt to protest the regime of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. They were demanding freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, it does not appear that that is what they got.

The U. K. Telegraph reported yesterday on what has happened in Egypt since the original protest.

The article reports:

The two presidential candidates who, as counting nears completion, seem to have got through to a second round of voting are the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood‘s front party, the FJP, and a former Air Force general who was prime minister when the “last dictator” Hosni Mubarak finally stepped down.

It really doesn’t seem like much of a choice, but the author of the article has a slightly different view. He states that this is democracy in action–the candidates got the votes and are therefore the choice of the people.

The article points out how the two candidates won:

The three losers appealed to people who like to argue about politics and ideas, and have “messages”. But they were essentially dilettantes. The Brotherhood and the ex-regime spoke directly to the concerns of ordinary Egyptians, and said what it could do for them.

The Brothers frighten the West with their Islamism. But their campaign talked about education for the poor, and defending traditional values. They came out strongly in favour of free market economics, and while it would be wrong to say Hayek won the election, in most of provincial Egypt, the imam, the teacher, the engineer and the local shop-keeper make more sense than semi-Marxist rhetoric coming out of Cairo; think of Britain and France in the 1950s, captivated by Angry Young Men and Sartre respectively, but voting Tory and Gaullist, and you get the idea.

Shafiq had one message: Mubarak was Mubarak, but security is security; two years ago you could walk the streets safely, and now you can’t. For communities traumatised by crime, that speaks loud.

This is a lesson that should be learned by American politicians–if you want to win, have a plan!

I don’t see any hope for a democracy in Egypt. If the Muslim Brotherhood wins this election, they will institute Sharia Law and that will be the end of freedom. I hope that I am wrong, but the lessons of history are, unfortunately, on my side.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Using The American Judicial System Against America

Yesterday’s New York Daily News posted an article about the circus that the trial of the 9/11 conspirators at Guantanamo has become. As you remember, one of the female defense lawyers had demanded that all female lawyers in the court wear Muslim dress. Other antics of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his fellow defendants are detailed in a May 5th article in the U.K. Daily Mail. These antics include such things are refusing to answer the judge’s questions, delaying the trial by kneeling in prayer, removing their headphones (for translation) and reading magazines. Generally, the defendants have done anything they could to turn the proceedings into a circus. The only reason their antics are not on the front page of every newspaper is that the trial is taking place in Cuba in a military tribunal–thus illustrating the wisdom of a military trial in Cuba rather than a civlian trial in New York City.

The Daily News reports the latest antic:

As shown by their past offensive behavior, including at their all-day, long-into-the-night arraignment, the intent is to make as much of a joke of the proceedings as possible.

Their enablers now include Navy Cmdr. Walter Ruiz and four fellow defense lawyers who have demanded that President Obama, former President George W. Bush and other top officials be compelled to testify.

The petition has about as much chance of success as a snowball in the Cuban heat. It is designed to undermine the credibility of the proceedings in those precincts where KSM has fans. The insinuation is that the tribunal judge is prejudiced against the defendants by virtue of harsh presidential statements made about them in the past.

In the past America has upheld some measure of decorum at military tribunals. I am hoping we will not be manipulated into abandoning that decorum during this trial (although it seems that we already have). We already have confessions from the men on trial, the questions should be, “Do we execute them and let them become martyrs or do we let them live out their lives enjoying a lifestyle they would never achieve in their home countries–electricity, running water, beautiful weather, etc.?” It’s an interesting dilemma.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Today is “Everybody blog about Brett Kimberlin day”

You ask, “Who is Brett Kimberlin, and what is all this about?”

The two best sources for information on what this is about are The Blaze and Datechguy’s Blog. Both sites will give you all the details. I am just going to give you the general overview.

This is the description of Brett Kimberlin from The Blaze:

  • Drug dealer, alleged child molester, and convicted perjurer, forger and Indiana Speedway Bomber (who is also believed to have played a role in the assassination of a grandmother), Brett Kimberlin, spent 17 years in prison before his ultimate re-absorption into American society
  • He started a non-profit dubbed “Justice Through Music (JTM)” that has, since at least 2005, been funded by George SorosTides Foundation and Barbara Streisand among other leftists
  • Along with his associate, Kimberlin also started an organization called “Velvet Revolution” that supports the Occupy movement 
  • JTM’s goal is to use music to foster “social justice” and fight Republican “voter fraud” (like the kind George Bush allegedly used to “steal” the Florida election)
  • Any blogger — conservative and liberal alike — who has written the truth about Kimberlin has come under vicious attack by either Kimberlin or his minions, suffering death threats (veiled and unveiled), multiple lawsuits, loss of jobs and worse
  • He has filed over 100 frivolous lawsuits against anything that isn’t nailed down and somehow is being allowed to continue unchecked 
  • This story has never been reported on in the mainstream media

Datechguy adds some recent perspective:

With all due deference to Stacy McCain and Lee I immediately recognize this as newsworthy and the bloggers inaction and the MSM’s inaction are the story today, much more than Brett Kimberlin himself. Think about it:

An American Reporter living in America has been forced to relocate himself and his family for their own safety and nobody wants to cover it except conservative bloggers despite great physical & financial risk.

It’s as if the entire right side of the blogosphere has become Pam Geller & Robert Spencer for a day.

To me this is story #1. It goes beyond political considerations. The Story of Stacy McCain’s flight, like the Molly Norris story, is a tale that has never failed to outrage the average American when I tell them face to face and would outrage the nation, yet thanks to the MSM inaction nobody has heard it.

To be sure there are other questions worth asking after today:

  • Will the organizations of the left that have funded Mr. Kimberlin continue to do so?
  • Will the online left back Mr. Kimberlin?
  • Will Brad Friedman of the Brad Blog continue to work with him?
  • And just how many bloggers will participate (and will there be any conspicuous by their absence)?

These stories are all newsworthy but none of them in my mind surpass what I am about to type:

At the start of the Memorial day weekend, when we celebrate and remember those who have died to protect our constitutional freedoms as elaborated in the Bill of Rights, an American Journalist and his family are in hiding for their own safety for daring to exercising those rights the men and women we honor died for.

That’s the bottom line.

Please read the articles at The Blaze and Datechguy’s blog for the entire story. It is chilling. It is time all Americans stood up and denouced thuggery in all of its forms.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Everything I Thought I Knew About Watergate Probably Isn’t True

A few months ago I heard a snippet of an interview of someone who had written a book about Watergate (unfortunately I don’t remember the name of the book) and thought, “This contradicts everything I have ever heard or remember about the Watergate scandal.” Since then I have occasionally come across more information that makes me wonder about what I read and heard at the time. The interview I heard dealt with some of the connections between some of the main players and the political opponents of the Nixon administration. As we approach the 40th anniversary of the Watergate break-in, it seems as if more information is coming out.

Pat Buchanan posted an article at Human Events today which adds to the debate on what Watergate was actually about.

Mr. Buchanan points out:

During Watergate, Woodward and Bernstein sought to breach the secrecy of the grand jury. The Post lawyer, Edward Bennett Williams, had to go to see Judge John Sirica to prevent their being charged with jury tampering.
No breach had occurred, we were assured.
We were deceived. 
According to Himmelman, not only did Bernstein try to breach the grand jury, he succeeded. One juror, a woman identified as “Z,” had collaborated. Notes of Bernstein’s interviews with Z were found in Bradlee’s files.
Writes Himmelman: “Carl and Bob, with Ben’s explicit permission, lured a grand juror over the line of illegality …”
This means that either Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee lied to Williams about breaching the grand jury, or the legendary lawyer lied to Sirica, or Sirica was told the truth but let it go, as all were engaged in the same noble cause — bringing down Nixon.
Who was that grand juror? Woodward, Bernstein and Bradlee know, but none is talking and no one is asking. The cover-up continues.

This is one of those situations where we may never know the truth. The biggest danger to us is assuming that everything we have heard or read so far is true. Hopefully the people involved in what happened after the Watergate break-in will begin to tell the entire story as they pass from the scene.


Enhanced by Zemanta

The History Of An Unfortunate Situation

On Wednesday I reported on the fate of Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States in the raid on Osama Bin Laden, who has been sentenced to 33 years in prison for conspiring against the state (

There is some further information on this story. The January 28, 2012, New York Times reported that:

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta has confirmed publicly for the first time that an imprisoned doctor in Pakistan was working with the C.I.A. to gain access to Osama bin Laden’s compound in the months before American troops killed Bin Laden last May.  

What was Secretary Panetta thinking? In the past, the United States would have had the decency to get Dr. Afridi out of Pakistan before his cover was blown. The doctor was not allowed to be present in the court that sentenced him or allowed to defend himself.

An article in the American Spectator posted today points out:

A resolution passed by the United Nations Security Council after 9/11 required member states to assist in bringing Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda network to justice.

Does either the United States or the United Nations have the character to intervene in this situation?

This is the administration that gave Hollywood unprecedented access to Defense Department information to make a movie about the killing of Osama Bin Laden (which coincidentally will be released shortly before the Presidential election). Someone needs to provide the entire administration with a detailed lecture on the proper handling of classified information.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Should We Do In Syria ?

Victor Davis Hanson posted an article at National Review today about the situation in Syria. It is entitled, “The Bad-Good Idea of Removing Assad.” That pretty much says it all.

The Bashar Assad dictatorship murders its own people, aids and arms Hezbollah, and targets Israel. This is not a dictator that America can do business with. However, what happens if he is ousted?

The article states:

But intervention, even if by air or through stealthy military assistance, requires some sort of strategy, and right now the United States does not seem to have any coherent one. We expected that post-Qaddafi Libya, and an Egypt without Hosni Mubarak, would be far better. They might be some day. But right now, emerging Islamic republics are hardly democratic. Some seem every bit as anti-American as were the dictatorships they replaced — and they could be even more intolerant of women, tribal minorities, and Christians. 

The point is not that we should support only idealists who promise an Arab version of Santa Monica, but that we do not oust one monster whom we are not responsible for only to empower one just as bad whom we would be responsible for. 

Our success in overthrowing tyrants in the Middle East is not matched by any success in what the dictatorships were replaced with. Sharia Law is enshrined in the constitutions of both Iraq and Afghanistan and will be in the Egyptian constitution. All we have done is replace one bad ruler with another bad ruler. That is not what America has done in the past, nor should it be what America does in the present.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. Mr. Hanson brings remarkable insight into the question of what we should be doing about the slaughter that is currently going on in Syria.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Facts Get In The Way Of Spin

The latest pre-election spin from the Obama campaign is that President Obama has slowed spending. Wow. If they get away with that one, they will begin to tell us that the sky is green. Investor’s Business Daily is my favorite source for numbers I don’t easily understand, and they have posted the story explaining the sleight of hand involved in the Obama campaign’s claim.

Ann Coulter wrote the article. She explains how the books are being cooked:

It turns out Rex Nutting, author of the phony Marketwatch chart, attributes all spending during Obama’s entire first year, up to Oct. 1, to President Bush.That’s not a joke.

That means, for example, the $825 billion stimulus bill, proposed, lobbied for, signed and spent by Obama, goes in … Bush’s column. (And if we attribute all of Bush’s spending for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and No Child Left Behind to William Howard Taft, Bush didn’t spend much either.)

Nutting’s “analysis” is so dishonest, even The New York Times has ignored it. He includes only the $140 billion of stimulus money spent after Oct. 1, 2009, as Obama’s spending.

And he’s testy about that, grudgingly admitting that Obama “is responsible (along with the Congress) for about $140 billion in extra spending in the 2009 fiscal year from the stimulus bill.”

It’s early in the silly season. I am sure there is much more of this to come.

Ms. Coulter further reports:

But Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush.

This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush had refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.

Bush had been chopping brush in Texas for two months at that point. Marketwatch’s Nutting says that’s Bush’s spending.

One begins to wonder how long it will be before everything is not Bush’s fault.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Under The Radar In The Blogosphere

When I began this blog, my children asked me not to connect my name and address with the blog. They feared that someone would get upset at what I wrote and choose to attack a little old lady. I thought they were being ridiculous, but I have generally respected their wishes. Something has been happening lately that shows the wisdom of their request.

There are a few links to the story I am about to tell–Michelle Malken, Datechguy’s Blog, and Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.

Michelle Malken reports:

Over the past year, Aaron Walker (who blogged as “Aaron Worthing”), Patterico, Liberty Chick, and now Stacy McCain have been targeted by convicted Speedway bomber Brett Kimberlin because they dared to mention his criminal past or assisted others who did. The late Andrew Breitbart warned about Kimberlin and company.

I have spoken directly with both Patterico and Aaron about their ongoing battles.

The mainstream press, not just the conservative blogosphere, needs to hear and report their stories.

This is a convoluted, ongoing nightmare that combines abuse of the court system, workplace intimidation, serial invasions of privacy, perjury, and harassment of family members. McCain was forced to move with his family out of his house this week, and has just gotten a small taste of what Aaron and Patterico have been enduring over the past year. Aaron and his wife were fired from their jobs after their employer feared the office would be targeted next. Convicted bomber Kimberlin has filed bogus “peace orders” against Aaron, when it is the Walkers who are the victims, not the perpetrators.

And Patterico’s plight will send chills up your spine when he is ready to tell it.

Datechguy reminds us:

Robert Stacy McCain is not just a blogger he is a reporter, he has chosen to cover a story and because he has and his family are in hiding for their own safety.

Run that through your head MSM. This is an American JOURNALIST forced into hiding IN AMERICA for covering a story and you don’t find that newsworthy?

I’d like to say I’m surprised at this but remembering Molly Norris (who is STILL in hiding) but the MSM’s silence doesn’t surprise me.

I stumbled on this story by accident. Where is the reporting in the major media? Have we become a country that routinely threatens and silences any speech that does not agree with those in power?

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air states:

I know what it’s like to find out that you’ve been targeted for violence — real violence, as in being targeted for death by an extremist who has picked out his target based on nothing more than writing about politics.  My situation got resolved, fortunately, but my life has not been quite the same since.  I had the good fortune of having friends who quietly made sure that my family had the security we needed for me to continue my work in American politics.

Looks like that time has come around for some of our friends in the blogosphere.  Aaron Walker, Patterico, Liberty Chick, and Stacy McCain have written extensively about a man named Brett Kimberlin and connections to violent political action.  I have only followed the story at a distance, and don’t hold myself out to be an expert on the subject.  The result of their investigations has prompted a flurry of legal harassment in some cases, and worse in others.  Today, the Boss Emeritus — who knows a thing or two about Unhinged reaction to free speech — rallies the blogosphere in defense of our friends:

…Institutional inertia, incompetence, and apathy among law enforcement officials on both coasts have exacerbated the victims’ suffering. It has moved far beyond a partisan or political story to a bottomless, Kafka-esque morass. And, via investigative journalist Matthew Vadum, it certainly doesn’t help that “progressive,” left-wing foundations that have funded Kimberlin continue to look the other way.

Ted Frank at Point of Law summed it up: “A scary tale of what can go wrong if one makes the wrong enemy of someone willing to persistently abuse the civil and criminal legal system, and how poorly the legal system protects those victims.”

This is an important story–our freedom of speech is at stake.





Enhanced by Zemanta

Things That Make You Wonder (Although Some Of Us Stopped Wondering A Long Time Ago)

Fox News is reporting today that Dr Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani doctor who helped the United States in the raid on Osama Bin Laden has been sentenced to 33 years in prison on Wednesday for conspiring against the state.

The article reports:

Shakil Afridi ran a vaccination program for the CIA to collect DNA and verify bin Laden’s presence at the compound in the town of Abbottabad where U.S. commandos killed the Al Qaeda chief last May in a unilateral raid. The operation outraged Pakistani officials, who portrayed it as an act of treachery by a supposed ally.

Wait a minute. Hasn’t the President been claiming all along that we were never sure that Osama Bin Laden was actually in the compound?

The article at Fox News reminds us:

On Tuesday, a Senate panel approved a foreign aid budget for next year that slashes U.S. assistance to Pakistan by more than half and threatens further reductions if it fails to open the NATO supply routes.

American lawmakers are also frustrated by suspicions that Pakistan is aiding militants who use its territory to attack U.S. troops in Afghanistan — allegations Islamabad has rejected. There is also lingering resentment over the fact that bin Laden was found hiding deep inside Pakistan.

But the U.S. cannot afford to turn its back on Pakistan entirely.

Pakistan is seen as vital to negotiating a peace deal with the Afghan Taliban and their allies given the country’s historical ties with the militants.

The Pakistani government is also keen to repair relations with the U.S., partly to receive over a billion dollars in American aid it needs to fill out its budget as it looks ahead to national elections scheduled for 2013. But patching up ties is politically sensitive in a country where anti-American sentiment is rampant.

Aside from the obvious questions surrounding the arrest of Dr. Afridi, why in the world are giving major amounts of money to a country that obviously does not support us? Also, why in the world are we negotiating a peace deal with the Taliban rather than defeating them?

Read more:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Two Different Opinions On A Treaty

Yesterday Politico posted an article by Senator John Kerry giving his views on why America needs to ratify the Law of The Sea Treaty (LOST). On Monday, the Center for Security Policy posted an article on why America should not ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty. I suggest you read both and then draw your own conclusions.

There are, however, a few things I would like to point out. This treaty has been kicking around since the 1980’s when President Reagan strongly opposed it because of its negative impact on American sovereignty.

Some basic problems with the LOST treaty (aptly named):

 “Article 81 of the treaty would require the US. and all nations to pay a
 portion of royalties from the use of the sea’s natural resources to the
 International Seabed Authority in Kingston, Jamaica. If ratified this
 nation would be required to transfer part of any royalties realized from
 the drilling of oil resources found on the U.S. continental shelf —
 defined as 200 nautical miles or more from shore — for redistribution to
 poorer, landlocked countries. This could amount to billions of dollars.”

The treaty would give a U.N. body veto power over the use of U.S. territorial
water and to which we’d be required to give half of our offshore oil
revenue to third world countries.”

I don’t claim to be unbiased in this discussion, but there are a few obvious things going on here. This is an election year. There is a very good chance that the Senate that would  be voting on the LOST treaty will not be the same Senate that will be in Washington in January. Why is the Senate voting on this now? It is not a time-sensitive issue and should not be voted on in what will most certainly be a lame-duck Senate. There is also a strong possibility that as Americans make plans for their summer vacations, they are not paying attention to what is going on in Washington. This is the Senate equivalent of the Friday afternoon document dump–the Senate wants to do this while no one is looking.

This treaty needs to be voted down. Hopefully, the Senators in Congress will realize that.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Happy Story For A Change

Yahoo News posted a story today which revealed a little ‘behind the scenes’ of the royal wedding last year. The story shows a side of the British royal family that does not often get revealed.

The article stated:

“There was very much a subdued moment when I was handed a list with 777 names on — not one person I knew or Catherine knew,” he (Prince William) said.

“I went to her (the Queen) and said, ‘Listen, I’ve got this list, not one person I know — what do I do?’ and she went, ‘Get rid of it. Start from your friends and then we’ll add those we need to in due course. It’s your day’.”

What a great story. The article also tells of Prince William’s admiration for the Queen and respect for her as a role model. Please follow the link and read the entire article. It’s the kind of feel-good news that doesn’t show up very often.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Perspective On National Healthcare

This morning while perusing the Wall Street Journal, I came across an article that caused me to pause for a moment. It had to do with Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, who died in Libya on Sunday. Mr. al-Megrahi was released from jail in Scotland three years ago when doctors declared that he had only three months to live (he was suffering from prostate cancer).

The article reports:

Karol Sikora, a leading cancer specialist who examined Megrahi shortly before his release, explains that predicting how long a patient with end-stage prostate cancer has to live is a  “value judgment of probablility,” not an exact science. But Dr. Sikora also writes that his initial three-month prognosis was “based on his treatment as an NHS patient in Glasgow at the time, when not even standard docetaxel chemotherapy was offered.” by contrast, “Mr. Megrahi almost certainly had excellent care in Tripoli.”

The article further points out that “standard docetaxel chemotherapy”  did become available to some Scottish patients in certain circumstances in 2006, but was not available to Megrahi. When Megrahi arrived in Libya, he received advanced chemotherapy as well as abiraterone, a drug approved by U. S. regulators in 2011.  The treatment he received in Libya is still largely unavailable through the British medical system, although next year abiraterone will be available to the English and Welsh (but not in Scotland due to the price).

The article concludes:

Prime Minister David Cameron has often said that Megrahi should never have been released, and that’s right. But perhaps the Libyan’s longevity should spark a different line of questioning: whether the most compassionate aspect of his release was freeing him from government health care–and whether nonterrorists deserve similar succor.

Something to think about as the Supreme Court debates Obamacare…

Enhanced by Zemanta