Monthly Archives: October 2012

Good News From The Scientific Community

Posted on by

Yesterday CBN News reported that the Nobel Prize for medicine has been awarded to John Gurdon from the United Kingdom and Shinya Yamanaka from Japan. The two scientists were involved in cell research.

The article reports:

Scientists John Gurdon from the United Kingdom and Shinya Yamanaka from Japan discovered it’s possible to take a cell out of an adult patient, strip-down the cell to what it was like when it was a brand new, healthy cell, then put that healthy cell into the patient in the part of the body that’s sick: such as  the brain, the spine, or heart.

The healthy cell then regenerates and takes over the sick area, making the patient well again.

The technique has proved successful with heart patients in a study at the University of Louisville.

The cells that the scientists used were adult stem cells, not embryonic stems cells.

The article further reports:

“It’s not hype, it is really hope. I think that stem cells will likely become a routine part of the treatment of cardiovascular disease in the next  few years,” Dr. Bolli said.

The discovery is good news for those who believe in the sanctity of life. Until now, much of the scientific community believed this type of cell regeneration needs to start with living, human embyos, a process that destroys the embryo.

This research will allow stem cell research to continue without creating life in order to destroy it. Adult stem cells have generally proven to be more successful in helping cure certain diseases than embryonic stem cells. This is a win for patients and for those who believe that life should not be created for the purpose of being destroyed.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Questions About Libya Continue

Posted on by

This is a video of a CBS interview of one of the security people withdrawn from Libya in August:

The interview was posted at Hot Air yesterday. It is becoming obvious that the State Department cut security at the embassy at a time when it was needed.

The article at Hot Air reports:

One State Department source tells CBS News the security teams weren’t “pulled,” that their mission was simply over.

State Department officials have told CBS News that Wood was not part of the security assessment in Benghazi and that his assignment to Tripoli means he was unfamiliar with the local situation in the smaller port city in the country’s east.

Wood, however, says some of the members of his own team and additional personnel from the State Department’s elite security detail – the two teams which left Libya in August – would have traveled to Benghazi with Ambassador Stevens had they still been in the country. He did not say how many additional security agents might have been deployed for the Ambassador’s trip to the city, which is at least 400 miles east of Tripoli, but he tells Attkisson that he’s wondered if it might have made a difference on the night of the attack.

This really looks as if the State Department had no idea of what was going on in Libya.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does The Supreme Judicial Court In Massachusetts Care About The Law ?

Posted on by

Yesterday Legal Insurrection posted a copy of a letter sent to the Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent statements by Michael Fredrickson, the General Counsel of the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers. Within a few hours after William Jacobson reported on his website, Legal Insurrection, that Elizabeth Warren was practicing law without a license, Mr. Fredrickson gave an interview defending Elizabeth Warren.

The article reports:

That Mass Lawyers Weekly interview has been the basis for the defense of Warren.  After all, if the General Counsel of the entity with quasi-regulatory authority publicly announced a conclusion, why treat the issue seriously?  Even The Boston Globe has a similar quote from Fredrickson today, and uses that quote to dismiss the issue out of hand.

Yet the issue is serious, as even people who did not initially agree with me have acknowledged.

Fredrickson effectively quashed the public discussion by virtue of his title and position.

Fredrickson later admitted, however, that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO and was not reaching any conclusions as to Warren individually because he knew so little about her practice….

This is the press release from the Republican Party, including the letter to Chief Justice Ireland:

Boston- Today, MassGOP Chairman Bob Maginn sent the following letter to the Honorable Chief Justice Roderick L. Ireland of the Supreme Judicial Court regarding recent comments made by Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel, Michael Fredrickson. The letter raises concerns about Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments that “appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch.”

Supreme Judicial Court
The Honorable Roderick L. Ireland
John Adams Courthouse
One Pemberton Square, Suite 2500
Boston, MA 02108

October 8, 2012

RE: Michael Fredrickson

Dear Chief Justice Ireland:

I am writing to express concern that the Board of Bar Overseers General Counsel Michael Fredrickson has made public comments without the benefit of any investigation or due process regarding legality of U.S. Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren’s practice of law from her office in Cambridge without admission to the Massachusetts bar. Mindful that Attorney Fredrickson has a fine reputation as General Counsel to the Board of Bar Overseers (“BBO”), a fictional writer, and law professor, I am nonetheless compelled to make your office aware of his recent public statements, as follows:

• “Michael Fredrickson, general counsel for the BBO, says he does not believe a law professor would be considered to have ‘a continuous presence’ or ‘an office practicing law.’ ‘If they actually practice here – as some part-time law professors at some of the smaller schools do – they might,’ Fredrickson says. ‘But being a professor at one of the large schools, their office is a professor’s office, and the fact that they tend to dabble in the practice of law doesn’t run afoul of our rule. I don’t think Elizabeth Warren would fall within that, such that she would have to register here.’ (Lisa Keen, “Warren law license matter called non-issue,” Mass Lawyers Weekly, 9/24/12).

• “Fredrickson stated that he did not purport to determine whether Warren violated the applicable law. He said he was just ‘speaking hypothetically’ and not specifically as to Warren because ‘I know so little about Elizabeth Warren and her practice.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

• “Fredrickson confirmed that he did make the comments attributed to him in MLW, but also made clear that he was not speaking on behalf of the BBO. Fredrickson said it was his ‘personal reading’ of the law, and that he was ‘not speaking on behalf of the Board of Bar Overseers.’” (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/09/no-mass-board-of-bar-overseers-has-not-exonerated-elizabeth-warren/)

Taking into consideration the honored tradition of the Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) and the BBO with regard to not politicizing the carrying out of your respective responsibilities, Mr. Fredrickson’s public comments appear to advance a partisan agenda that is inconsistent with any agency within the judicial branch. Foremost, Mr. Fredrickson’s statements arrived in the public dialogue devoid of any formal investigation, fact finding, or proper evaluation. Further, upon consultation with counsel, I understand Mr. Fredrickson’s conclusions to be incorrect. As a threshold, the part-time practice of law is not any less the practice of law; and, without an appropriate exception to the Rules of Professional Conduct, a license is required for the practice of law in the Commonwealth. Lastly, while I notice Mr. Fredrickson’s repackaged his statements as those of his own and not of the BBO they still may be attributable as opinions of the SJC and the BBO without a formal correction.

In view of the aforementioned, it may be appropriate for the SJC or the BBO to issue a statement recognizing the lack of authority and enforceability of Mr. Fredrickson’s personal views. Accordingly, with this correspondence, I deferentially request that the SJC issue a statement or direct the BBO to issue a statement to that effect.

Respectfully,

Bob Maginn

cc:
Susan Mellen, Supreme Judicial Court, Clerk
Christine P. Burak, Legal Counsel to the Chief Justice
Michael Fredrickson, Board of Bar Overseers, General Counsel
David S. Mackey, Board of Bar Overseers, Chair

This is an issue that needs to be investigated.

Enhanced by Zemanta

While We Are In The Silly Season Of American Politics, The Middle East Is Preparing For War

Posted on by

Yahoo News reported that the Israeli air force shot down a drone in Southern Israel on Saturday.

The article reports:

The drone was first spotted above the Mediterranean in the area of the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip to the west of Israel, said military spokeswoman Avital Leibovich.

It was kept under surveillance and followed by Israeli air force jets before it was shot down above a forest in an unpopulated area near the border with the occupied West Bank.

It was reported that the drone was not carrying any explosives. Security sources have stated that it is unlikely that the drone came from the Gaza Strip. Defense officials were also not confirming a statement made by Israeli parliament member Miri Regev, a former chief spokesman of the military, that the drone was an “Iranian drone launched by Hezbollah.”

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Government Intrusion Coming To A Yard Sale Near You

Posted on by

Market Watch posted a story yesterday about a Supreme Court case that will come up during this term of the Supreme Court. Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons deals with the first-sale doctrine in copyright law, which allows you to buy and then sell things like electronics, books, artwork and furniture, as well as CDs and DVDs, without getting permission from the copyright holder of those products.

The article explains that because the copyright holder was paid when the article sold the first time, after sales are not covered. However, that idea is being challenged for items made abroad.

The article reports:

That’s being challenged now for products that are made abroad, and if the Supreme Court upholds an appellate court ruling, it would mean that the copyright holders of anything you own that has been made in China, Japan or Europe, for example, would have to give you permission to sell it.

“It means that it’s harder for consumers to buy used products and harder for them to sell them,” said Jonathan Band, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, who filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the American Library Association, the Association of College and Research Libraries and the Association for Research Libraries. “This has huge consumer impact on all consumer groups.”

Another likely result is that it would hit you financially because the copyright holder would now want a piece of that sale.

The article explains the basis for the case:

The case stems from Supap Kirtsaeng’s college experience. A native of Thailand, Kirtsaeng came to America in 1997 to study at Cornell University. When he discovered that his textbooks, produced by Wiley, were substantially cheaper to buy in Thailand than they were in Ithaca, N.Y., he rallied his Thai relatives to buy the books and ship them to him in the United States.

He then sold them on eBay, making upward of $1.2 million, according to court documents.

Wiley, which admitted that it charged less for books sold abroad than it did in the United States, sued him for copyright infringement. Kirtsaeng countered with the first-sale doctrine.

There can be hazards in doing business in a world-wide market.

The article reminds us that if the court rules that the first-sale principle does not apply to products made oversees, many businesses in the United States would be adversely impacted. Many parts of American cars are made overseas. Does that mean that when you sell your used car, you need permission from a Japanese parts company?

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this. Frankly, I think Supap Kirtsaeng should get an award for entrepreneurial excellence!

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Unseen Cost Of A Litigious Society

Posted on by

This story has been sitting on my toolbar since Thursday. I didn’t want to write it because I don’t fully understand it and it is very complex, but it needs to be written.

Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article on Thursday entitled, “Power and Constraint — how the JAGs hijacked U.S. anti-terrorism policy.” The article deals with how our actions in fighting the war on terror have been hijacked by lawyers rather than being run by the military.

The article reports:

During the Bush years, we often heard from the left that the war on terror was changing America for the worse by undermining our values and our Constitution. These claims were mostly nonsense. But one portion of our system did take a hit — the concepts of civilian control of the military and the Commander-in-Chief as chief law interpreter for the executive branch. This was the handiwork of the JAGs.

We covered this development as best we could on Power Line, mostly by reporting on the work, and the preening, of Lindsey Graham, the JAGs men in Congress. However, until I read Jack Goldsmith’s book Power and Constraint, I didn’t know the half of it.

Mr. Mirengoff then excerpts a large portion of his review of the Book Power and Constraint to explain how the JAGs have influenced the way the war is being fought. I strongly recommend that you follow the above link to the Power Line article and read the entire article.

The article at Power Line concludes:

Goldsmith appears troubled by the military’s undermining of the President’s ability to interpret the law on behalf of the executive branch. He also recognizes that the injection of lawyers into battle harmed U.S. counterterrorism efforts. Ultimately, he is agnostic as to whether the harm is outweighed by the possible prevention of misguided polices and the blowback they would have caused.

Goldsmith’s agnosticism is understandable. Both sides of the cost-benefit equation are impossible to measure. But this much should be clear: our elected executive is responsible for making the cost-benefit decisions. His decisions may be subject to judicial review, but they should not be undermined or thwarted by military lawyers. It also seems clear that in war, including war on terrorism, the president should err in favor of defeating the enemy, rather than minimizing “blowback.”

As a relative of a soldier who served two tours in Afghanistan, I object to the current rules of engagement. I think it’s time we either fought wars or left situations alone. There really is no successful in-between path.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does Big Bird Need Taxpayer Money ?

Posted on by

As a grandmother who has purchased numerous ‘Tickle Me Elmo” stuffed animals, Big Bird Books, and various Bert and Ernie dolls, and watched numerous fund raisers on PBS (and occasionally donated), I wonder why Public Broadcasting still needs my tax money. Well, I may have found a clue in an old news article.

In March of 2011, Jim DeMint posted an article at Fox Nation detailing some of the financial information of the Public Broadcasting Network.

The article reports:

...The executives at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which distributes the taxpayer money allocated for public broadcasting to other stations, are also generously compensated. According to CPB’s 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another $70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related organizations that year. That’s practically a pittance compared to Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2 million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit filed in 2009.

I will admit that normally I don’t care how much executives make–that’s between them and their stockholders–but this is a non-profit organization which receives large amounts of taxpayer money (much of which is borrowed from China and will eventually have to be paid back by the children watching Big Bird!). As taxpayers, we are funding this. Is this the best possible use of resources?

The article further points out:

 Meanwhile, highly successful, brand-name public programs like Sesame Street make millions on their own. “Sesame Street,” for example, made more than $211 million from toy and consumer product sales from 2003-2006. Sesame Workshop President and CEO Gary Knell received $956,513 in compensation in 2008. With earnings like that, Big Bird doesn’t need the taxpayers to help him compete against the Nickleodeon cable channel’s Dora the Explorer.

 I had not considered the fact that Dora does not receive taxpayer money, yet seems to be doing very well. I have seen numerous Dora the Explorer backpacks, coloring books, and other goodies among my grandchildren’s toys.

It truly is time to stop borrowing money from China to fund Big Bird.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Where Did The Wonderful Unemployment Numbers Come From ?

Posted on by

Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line explaining the sudden wonderful drop in the unemployment numbers released today.

The article reports:

But there’s a problem with the report: it doesn’t make sense. As Kevin Hassett points out, the 114,000 net jobs created in September is well below the average for this year (146,000) and the average for last year (153,000).

So how did the Department of Labor come up with an unemployment rate that indicates significant improvement in the jobs picture? It found the alleged improvement through its survey of households. As Hassett explains, the Labor Department’s jobs report is always based on two surveys, one of households and one of establishments.

Professional economists and the press usually emphasize the establishment survey because it is considered less volatile. This month, that survey continues to show the usual weakness in the job market. But the household survey purports to show massive improvement.

This sort of mathematical trickery was totally predictable to anyone who understands President Obama’s roots in Chicago politics. Over the next four weeks, we may actually be told that there is no unemployment actually remaining in America. These numbers are about as reliable as your teenage son telling you that there was a unicorn standing in the middle of the highway, and traffic slowed to a crawl to avoid an accident so he was late getting home.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Surprise ! Obama Movie To Be Released Weekend Before Election

Posted on by

CNN News is reporting that “SEAL Team Six: The Raid on Osama bin Laden,” will be shown on television the weekend before the November election.

The article reports:

The film is being distributed by the Weinstein Company, owned by a Harvey Weinstein, a major backer of President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign.

Is anyone surprised?

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Foxes Are Watching The Chickens Again

Posted on by

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon reported that the U. S. State Department has selected Salam al-Marayati, founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), to participate in a human rights forum in Poland.

The article reports:

Al-Marayati has been a vociferous critic of Israel, once suggesting that Israel should be put “on the suspect list” for the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. His organization, MPAC, has requested that militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah be removed from the list of United States-designated terrorist groups.

Al-Marayati’s inclusion in the U.S. delegation attracted the ire of Jewish leaders and others who feel he is the wrong person to represent America at a forum focusing on human rights and tolerance.

The State Department stood by al-Marayati Thursday, telling the Free Beacon that the Israel critic is “valued and highly credible.”

Please follow the above link to the Washington Free Beacon to read the entire story. Sometimes I wonder who the State Department is working for.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Makes Money In ObamaCare ?

Posted on by

The following charts are from Forbes.com:

What the chart shows is the profits the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) will make as the result of the passage of ObamaCare. One of the aspects of ObamaCare is the end of the Medicare Advantage program–the favorite program of senior citizens.

The article at Forbes reports:

Not only did AARP succeed in getting Democrats to balk at Medigap reform. Obamacare’s cuts to Medicare Advantage will drive many seniors out of that program, and into traditional government-run Medicare, which will increase the number of people who need Medigap insurance.

It gets worse. AARP Medigap plans are exempted from most of Obamacare’s best-known insurance mandates. AARP Medigap plans are exempted from the ban that requires insurers to take all comers, regardless of pre-existing conditions. The plans are exempted from the $500,000 cap on insurance industry executive compensation; top AARP executives currently make more than $1 million. AARP plans are exempt from the premium tax levied on other private insurers. IPAB, Medicare’s rationing board, is explicitly barred from altering Medicare’s cost-sharing provisions, provisions that govern the existence of Medigap plans.

And AARP Medigap plans are allowed to have twice the administrative costs that other private insurers are allowed under Obamacare’s medical loss ratio regulations. This last point is key, because AARP’s 4.95 percent royalty is a significant administrative cost.

One of the most corrupt administrations in American history has ruined American healthcare. Unless we vote President Obama out of office and repeal ObamaCare, the crony capitalism engaged in by this administration will haunt us for years.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Random Notes On Last Night’s Debate

Posted on by

Smart Politics posted an interesting article on the debate last night between President Obama and Governor Romney.

The article reported:

Obama spoke for 42 minutes and 40 seconds or 52.7 percent of the candidate-allotted speaking time.

And while Romney at times appeared to interrupt moderator Jim Lehrer, perhaps he did so for good reason.

A Smart Politics analysis finds that Mitt Romney spoke for 38 minutes and 14 seconds, or 47.3 percent of the candidate-allotted speaking time – a full four minutes and 26 seconds less than Barack Obama.

Interesting.

I enjoyed the debate. I liked the format–it gave both candidates a chance to state their case and dispute any questionable facts given by the other candidate. I also liked the fact that the moderator kept a low profile and let the candidates talk.

The article further reports:

Lehrer, meanwhile, seemed to disappear and at times lose control of the debate – speaking significantly less than debate moderators from the GOP primaries this cycle.

Lehrer spoke for just 8 minutes and 10 seconds, or 9 percent of the total time between himself and the two nominees.

During the GOP presidential primary debates, moderators spoke for an average of twice that amount (19.8 percent) ranging from a high of 27 percent to a low of 14 percent.

The debate should be between the candidates–not a stage for the moderator. I liked the way Jim Lehrer moderated the debate.

One final thought:

“80 percent of success is just showing up”  — Woody Allen

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Possible Reason The Presidential Race Is Still Close

Posted on by

Hot Air posted an article yesterday stating that 58 percent of registered voters were unfamiliar with Solyndra.

The article reports:

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 58 percent of registered voters are unaware or unsure of the company, which went bankrupt in 2011 after receiving an Energy Department loan guarantee in 2009 to manufacture advanced solar panels.

Twenty-five percent of respondents had a negative view of Solyndra, 15 percent were neutral and just 2 percent held a positive view on the subect, according to the survey conducted in late September. …

The company’s collapse in late August of 2011, which put more than 1,000 people out of work, was an embarrassment for the White House. Obama had personally visited Solyndra in 2010 to cast it as an example of the emerging green economy.

Attempts to make green energy practical have cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Someone needs to launch an advertising campaign explaining how many government-financed companies related to green energy have been forced to lay off workers or have gone bankrupt. Meanwhile, it would help the Romney campaign to make sure everyone was aware of how much money has been wasted on Solyndra and other green energy companies.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Purchase Of Thomson State Prison In Illinois

Posted on by

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review today about the government’s  purchase of Thomson State Prison in Illinois. Mr. McCarthy believes that the prison is being prepared to house the inmates currently at Guantanamo.

The article reports:

As the 9/11 Families point out, the Justice Department’s court filing on the purchase of the state prison took pains to keep open its option to transfer Gitmo prisoners there. DOJ declares that the purpose of the acquisition includes “provid[ing] humane and secure confinement of individuals held under authority of any Act of Congress, and such other persons as in the opinion of the Attorney General of the United States are proper subjects for confinement in such institutions.” The Gitmo detainees are being held under the authority of acts of Congress — in particular, the 2001 authorization for the use of military force. And Attorney General Holder has been insistent that, in his opinion, civilian federal prisons are fitting holding facilities for enemy-combatant terrorists captured in wartime.

As with many other things (the release of the Blind Sheik, the nasty parts of Obamacare, the crackdown on fracking, etc.), it is a safe bet that there will be no transfers of Guantanamo prisoners there until after the 2012 election.

What is the problem with moving Guantanamo prisoners there? Housing prisoners in the United States rather than on an island makes them easier for terrorists to access or to create hostage situations near the prison. Because the prisoners are actually on United States soil, it is only a matter of time before lawyers will get involved and find a legal loophole to let the prisoners loose on American streets. Generally, housing terrorists on American soil is just a bad idea.

This is another illustration of the need for a new administration in Washington.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Disturbing

Posted on by

There are three major stories on the Internet today dealing with the attack on the American embassy in Libya and the death of American Ambassador Chris Stevens. The stories are at the Washington Examiner,  Breitbart.com, and The Daily Beast.

The Washington Examiner reports:

“In addition, multiple U.S. federal government officials have confirmed to the Committee (House Oversight and Government Reform Committee) that, prior to the September 11 attack, the U.S. mission in Libya made repeated requests for increased security in Benghazi,” Issa and Chaffetz added (my emphasis). “The mission in Libya, however, was denied these resources by officials in Washington.”

The committee noted 13 “security threats” in Benghazi, including an attempt to assassinate the British ambassador to Libya.

Breitbart lists the attacks prior to September 11:

  • April 6, 2012 – An IED is thrown over the consulate fence in Benghazi.
  • April 11, 2012 – A gun battle 4km from the Benghazi consulate.
  • April 25, 2012 – A US Embassy guard in Tripoli is detained at a militia checkpoint.
  • April 26, 2012 – A fistfight escalates into a gunfight at a Benghazi Medical University and a US Foreign Service Officer in attendance is evacuated.
  • April 27, 2012 – Two South African contractors are kidnapped in Benghazi, questioned and released.
  • May 1, 2012 – Deputy Commander of the local guard force in Tripoli is carjacked and beaten.
  • May 22, 2012 – RPG rounds are fired at the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi.
  • June 2012 – A pro-Gaddafi Facebook page posts photos of Ambassador Stevens making his morning run in the city of Tripoli and made a threat toward the Ambassador.
  • June 6, 2012 – An IED is left at the gate of the US consulate in Benghazi.
  • June 10, 2012 – RPG is fired at the convoy carrying the British Ambassador in broad daylight as he is nearing the British consulate in Benghazi. No one is killed but the British later close the consulate.
  • Late June, 2012 – Another attack on the Red Cross outpost in Benghazi, this one in daylight. The Red Cross pulls out leaving the US consulate the last western outpost in the city.
  • August 6, 2012 – Attempted carjacking of a vehicle with US diplomatic plates in Tripoli.
  • Weeks prior to Sept. 11, 2012 – Libyan guards at the Benghazi consulate are “warned by their family members to quit their jobs” because of rumors of a “impending attack.”

The Daily Beast reports:

Security deteriorated significantly in June. On June 10, a man fired a rocket-propelled grenade in broad daylight into a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya. Later that month, the Red Cross was attacked again. By the end of June, the British Consulate and the Red Cross closed their facilities in Benghazi. By the start of July, the U.S. Consulate was one of the only Western targets left in the city.

“This was not a safe country on its way to a normalized situation. It was a very volatile situation,” Chaffetz told The Daily Beast.

The House Oversight Committee is expected to hold a hearing on Oct. 10 on the threats leading up to the attack.

Someone made some serious mistakes here in evaluating the risk to our Ambassador and other embassy employees. It seems as if common sense would have either increased the security at the embassy or at least temporarily removed the embassy from Libya.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Overruling The Law When Convenient

Posted on by

Sequestration is scheduled to occur on January 2, 2013. As usual, note that this is after the November election. Sequestration is essentially drastic cuts to government spending triggered by the fact that Congress was unable to reach a budget compromise. Sequestration will have an incredibly negative aspect on the American economy overall if is actually happens, and as of now, it will happen.

Scott Johnson at Power Line posted an article today about some of the political maneuvering revolving around sequestration. The article explains that under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, defense contractors are required to issue notices of layoffs to employees 60 days before the layoffs occur. Since under sequestration defense contractors can expect major layoffs (January 2, 2013), those notices would go out in early November. Obviously, the Obama Administration does not want that to happen.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued a memorandum stating that they do not believe these notices should be issued. Please follow this link to read the entire memorandum.

Some highlights from the memorandum:

DOL (Department of Labor) concluded that it is neither necessary nor appropriate for Federal contractors to provide WARN Act notice to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts, among other factors:

Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff ofa type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resulting employee· compensation costs for WARN Act liability as detennined by a court, as well as attoroeys’ fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of li tigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable.

Translated into English, this says don’t send out the notices and the government will pay any legal penalties.

The Hill reports:

“The Obama Administration is cynically trying to skirt the WARN Act to keep the American people in the dark about this looming national security and fiscal crisis,” Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in a statement. “The president should insist that companies act in accordance with the clearly stated law and move forward with the layoff notices.”

No one actually knows if sequestration will happen, but right now it is scheduled to happen. The law needs to be followed, regardless of the politics involved. The government is not supposed to be used as a campaign committee. This is totally over the top.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Challenges To ObamaCare Continue

Posted on by

Fox News reported yesterday that the Supreme Court may be taking another case regarding ObamaCare.

The article reports:

Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, has been fighting the employer mandate since the law was enacted, while challenging the law on other constitutional grounds. The school got as far as the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which refused to hear the merits of the case. That federal court decided that the original Liberty University lawsuit was barred because of the Anti-Injunction Act, which would block any challenge to a “tax” before a taxpayer actually pays it, in this case referring to the penalties associated with failing to obtain health insurance. 

In June, the Supreme Court ruled that the Anti-Injunction Act did not serve as a barrier to lawsuits challenging the health care law. On that basis, Liberty University immediately petitioned the court to allow it to renew its original case.

On Monday, the Supreme Court noted the university’s renewed request and gave the administration 30 days to respond to the request, suggesting that the justices are taking the Liberty request seriously.

ObamaCare is bad law, and I suspect that if the majority party in Washington changes in November it will be repealed and replaced. I hope so.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Respecting The Past

Posted on by

Tonight I attended a Board of Selectmen meeting in Plainville, Massachusetts. I attended the meeting to hear an update on a building in Plainville that has many wonderful memories for the people of the town. Falk’s Market, with the address of 2 East Bacon Street, has been neglected for many years. The building was bought by Jeff Kinney, a resident of the town, and the author of the Wimpy Kid book series.

Mr. Kinney and his wife, Julie, made the following statement at the meeting:

Good evening, and thanks for giving us a forum to discuss the status of the development of 2 East Bacon Street in downtown Plainville.

It’s been several months since we last appeared before the Board of Selectmen, and although outward appearances suggest little is happening with the property, we’ve been actively working on the project since we last met.

Earlier this year we hired a development manager, Bob Nicodemus, who has 30 years of experience as an architect, and attorney Dave Simmons, who has worked on several key development projects in the area, including the Lowes on Route One and the Plainville Commons shopping area. We’ve also been working with local architects and engineers to study the property and have made significant progress.

We recently conducted a pro forma evaluation of the property to see what a business would require to thrive at 2 East Bacon. It became evident early on that for the site to host a sustainable business, it would need more parking capacity. This summer we made an offer to acquire 8 East Bacon, the lot adjacent to Falk’s Market, and we’re happy to report that earlier today, we closed on that property. Having additional parking will give the business that occupies 2 East Bacon a chance to succeed.

As we previously reported, we had the existing Falk’s Market structure analyzed by two engineers in the spring. Their shared opinion was that the building has serious and widespread structural problems, and demolition was recommended. This summer we had a formal architectural study conducted on the property, and the result was the same. The major components of the building–the floors, ceilings, structural support, foundation, and the entire outer envelope all need to be replaced. After months of studies and analysis we feel certain that the building, in its current state, cannot reasonably be saved.

Therefore, we’ve made the difficult decision to take Falk’s Market down. This decision was not made lightly. Over the course of the past year, we’ve spoken with dozens of people who have great memories of the building and its proprietor, Merrill Falk. We don’t relish the idea of taking down Falk’s Market, but we feel that it’s the only practical option given the state of the building. We’d like to ask everyone in Plainville to support and encourage us in our goal to construct a new building where town residents can come together and make memories for generations to come.

As we’ve stated from the beginning, our hope is to create an iconic symbol of the downtown that all Plainville residents can be proud of. We recently started working with local architects to draw up plans for a building that fits downtown Plainville’s character. We have several preliminary concepts completed but we want to continue exploring different options before sharing them with the community at large.

The timetable for taking the building down has not yet been set, but when we do begin the process, we’ll take great care to preserve those parts of Falk’s Market that can be reused or repurposed.

This month, we’ll be filing applications with the Board of Health, the Redevelopment Authority and the Zoning Board to accelerate the development of 2 East Bacon. We look forward to working with the town to bring this project to fruition.

Thanks for your time, and we’d be happy to answer any questions.

What a wonderful attitude this statement represents. There will be many tears because the building cannot be saved, but the respect in their statement for the history of the building and the history of Plainville is fantastic. It is my hope that every resident of Plainville will support the Kinneys as they move forward with their plans for Falk Market, and that even though we are losing a part of our past, we can be excited about our future. Thank you Jeff and Julie Kinney for your commitment to Plainville. We are blessed to have you as part of our town.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch For In The Presidential Debates

Posted on by

Hugh Hewitt (my favorite talk show host) posted an article at the Washington Examiner yesterday about President Obama’s poker tells. I am not a poker player, but I understand the concept of watching your opponents’ actions in order to win a card game.

The article lists the ‘tells’:

First, the president begins a pattern of “ahs” and “uhmms” which are as embarrassing as they are revealing. The awkward pausing punctuated by these semi-stutters increases in frequency as the president senses his own flailing about.

Next, the president begins filibustering. His average length of answer in every press conference is already epic, but he has been getting worse as the presidency has dragged on.

…the president’s feigned outrage that anyone would interrupt or question him. When this happens, his countenance displays a disapproving sneer and his voice clouds with displeasure. It is practiced. It is also profoundly anti-democratic and arrogant, and if he plays this card on this stage, it will backfire.

Watch as well for nonresponsive self-pity, verbal essays on how difficult it was when he took over and how hard he has been working.

Finally, watch for the parade of straw men, the president’s favorite rhetorical trick.

Television has changed presidential debates–those who heard the Nixon-Kennedy debate of the radio declared Nixon the winner–those who watched it on television declared Kennedy the winner. I believe that Al Gore’s antics during the time that George W. Bush was speaking during their debate was one factor that cost him the election in 2000. President Obama needs to avoid falling into the same trap.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Under The Radar This Weekend

Posted on by

Breitbart.com reported yesterday that Guantanamo terrorist Omar Khadr has been transferred from Guantanamo to Canada.

The article reports:

Khadr was transferred from Guantanamo under a long standing agreement between Canada and the United States that allows prisoners to serve out part of their sentence in their home country. Given Canada’s lax justice system, liberal judges and light sentences, it is likely Khadr could be released soon despite his conviction for Speer‘s murder and his admission to supporting terrorism. In fact the left wing Toronto Star has already published an editorial calling for the young terrorist’s swift release from prison.

The article further reports:

The jury at Khadr’s trial recommended that he be sentenced to 40 years but before deliberations had even begun the prosecution had struck its deal to see the sentence top out at 8 years with the possibility of transfer to Canada after 1 year. The jury was never told about the plea bargain.

Omar Khadr was born in Canada. He is the son of Egyptian Ahmed Khadr, a financier for Al-Qaida who moved his whole family into the Osama bin Laden compound in Afghanistan in the years before 9-11.

I am assuming this move is legal, but it is certainly not wise. If Canada frees him quickly, we will have been part of letting another terrorist lose in the world.

Enhanced by Zemanta