Monthly Archives: March 2013

When Photo-Ops Are Totally Ridiculous

Posted on by

The Blaze is reporting today that the tree that President Obama planted in Israel today to symbolize the special relationship between Israel in America will be dug up immediately. This is not a joke. All agricultural products introduced into Israel have to go through a quarantine in order to insure that they do not carry diseases or insects not already in Israel.

The article reports:

An Agriculture Ministry official told Ynet (Blaze translation from Hebrew), “Because the American President Barack Obama brought the plant with him and because it is forbidden to bring plants into Israel from overseas without first passing inspection or quarantine – due to the fear of importing disease or harmful pests that could be found on the plant – the tree will thus be taken for tests.”

The officials stressed there’s no diplomatic gaffe here, that officials in President Peres’s office and at the Foreign Ministry were aware of the plans.

Agriculture officials say the examination could take “months.”

Most countries (and many states) have laws against bringing a plant into the country (or state) that may have a disease or a resident insect. The mistake has been made a number of times–either a plant was brought in, an exotic pet was let loose in the wild and multiplied, or a research facility accidentally released an insect. Some examples–fruit flies in California, gypsy moths in New England, kudzu in the American south, and walking fish in Maryland.

The Israeli government did what was necessary with the tree, but I think the fact that the President set up a photo-op that immediately had to be undone is somewhat humorous.

Enhanced by Zemanta

If You Think Second Amendment Opponents Are Not Serious…

Posted on by

Fox News is reporting today that Shawn Moore of New Jersey was visited by the New Jersey Department of Child Services after he posted a picture on Facebook. The picture was of Mr. Moore’s ten-year-old son Josh holding the .22 caliber rifle he got for his birthday.

The article reports:

Shawn and Josh Moore joined Fox and Friends this morning to tell their story. According to Shawn, when authorities showed up at their home, they said they wanted to look through the house to make sure that guns weren’t available to his children. They also wanted to access his safe in order to run the serial numbers on his weapons to confirm that they were all registered to him. They did not have a warrant.

Moore said the request immediately raised red flags. “I think it’s totally illegal cause in New Jersey, you don’t have to register your firearms. I didn’t commit any crime, I wasn’t charged with anything,” he said.

Just for the record, the government cannot simply show up at someone’s house and search the house without a warrant–that is illegal. Mr. Moore quickly contacted his lawyer who told him not to open the safe. At that point the representatives from the Department of Child Services threatened to take his children away if he did not open the safe. Mr. Moore stood his ground, and after about an hour the authorities left.

There are a few lessons to be learned here. Although there was nothing wrong with posting the picture on Facebook, it was probably not a wise thing to do in today’s supercharged political climate. Another lesson is that every American needs to know their rights in order to counter harassment from our government. Another lesson is that Americans need not be intimidated by government bureaucrats who overstep their bounds. I doubt this story will be told in the mainstream media, but I can guarantee that if the authorities had removed the Moore children from the house most Americans would have heard the story and been upset with the government.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sometimes There Really Is A Cost To Ignoring The Constitution

Posted on by

The Second Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What part of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” do many of our current lawmakers not understand?

I know you can twist the words in ninety directions to attempt to change what they say, but the words are pretty straightforward. Anyway, a state is about to pay a price for choosing to ignore those words.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday about a new gun law about to be signed by Governor John Hickenlooper of Colorado. The bill limits magazine capacities. The executives at Colorado-based Magpul, a company that manufactures high-capacity magazines, has announced that if the Governor signs the bill they will leave Colorado for friendlier venues and take hundreds of jobs with them. Two legislators from the State of Pennsylvania have already put out the welcome mat for the company.

The article reports:

A Colorado-based magazine manufacturer said it would leave the state if the new restrictions were passed, taking hundreds of jobs with it. Democrats tried to ease the concerns from Magpul Industries, saying the company can still manufacture higher-capacity magazines if they were sold out of state.

Waller blasted Democrats on that amendment, saying it was hypocritical because they are telling the company “you can sell (magazines) at any other place where any of these tragic shootings have happened.”

Waller called the exemption “a monumental inconsistency in their thought process.”

What was the message here? Colorado won’t allow people to purchase high-capacity magazines because that will supposedly decrease violence, but they’re happy to export them to other states? One can’t blame Magpul for failing to trust Democrats to leave that loophole open for very long, not after their demonstration of hostility to Magpul’s industry.

I will admit that I don’t know why anyone needs a high-capacity magazine, but when the government starts limiting something it never seems to know where to stop. From what I have heard from people who know, high-capacity magazines jam easily and are actually not as deadly as lower-capacity magazines in many cases. At any rate, this law is an infringement–something the Second Amendment says is not allowed.

We need more Americans like the executives of Magpul who are willing to stand up for what they believe.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Contrast In Values

Posted on by

Hamas has repeatedly told Israel, “We love death more than you love life.” That is the culture of Palestine–Hamas rules Palestine. This week there was a vivid illustration of that statement.

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line reported that Mariam Farhat died in Gaza City after a long illness. She had been previously elected to the legislature in Gaza. She was the mother of six sons, but three died while committing suicide missions in Israel.

The article reports the touching story of her son Mohammed:

In a video that mother and son made together just before the attack, Farhat said: “I wish I had 100 boys like Mohammad. I’d sacrifice them for the sake of God.”

“When I see all the Jews in Palestine killed, that will be enough for me,” his mother said on camera. “I wish he will kill as many as he can, so they will be scared.” …

The video showed Mohammed holding hands with his mother, who prayed for him to become a “martyr,” the term Palestinians use for militants killed in attacks on Israelis. Armed with grenades and automatic rifles, he broke into a study hall, killing five seminary students before he was shot dead by a soldier.

Hamas supervised Mrs. Farhat’s funeral.

After reading Mrs. Farhat’s statement and seeing that she was honored for the sacrifice of her sons, I have no reason to believe there will ever be peace in the Middle East unless this kind of thinking changes.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Are We Giving Food Stamps To People Who Are Not American Citizens?

Posted on by

Why are we giving food stamps to people in America who are not American citizens? Wouldn’t that be a good thing for the sequester to cut? Wouldn’t it be cheaper simply to give them an airplane ticket (and an escort onto the airplane) home?

On Sunday the Daily Caller posted an article about food stamps for non-citizens.

The article reports:

After an effort to defund the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s food stamp outreach partnership with the Mexican government went down in committee Thursday, Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions continued to press the agency for more information about non-citizen participation in the food stamp program.

The article stated that since 2004 between 3 and 4 percent of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamp program is going to non-citizens.

Does anyone really believe that if you were an American living in another country (legal or otherwise), that the country you were living in would give you free food? This is simply another attempt by the government to make everyone in the country more dependent on the government for their existence.

It’s time to remember what America is about–equal opportunity, self reliance, and independence from intrusive government. We cannot financially afford to let the food stamps program continue to grow at its current rate, but more than that, we cannot afford to let the program create a mindset of dependency. There are signs in our national forests telling us not to feed the animals as they will grow lazy and dependent on humans for their food. Do we need a “Do Not Feed The People” sign?

What Happens When Our Government Does Not Understand The Culture It Is Dealing With

Posted on by

Front Page Magazine posted an article today showing the cultural differences in the way America and Egypt view our foreign aid to that country.

The article reports:

As earlier suggested, the wonderful thing about Salafis—those extra “radical” Muslims who seek to emulate as literally as possible prophet Muhammad’s teachings and habits—is that they are so unabashed and frank about what they believe.   Such is the degree of brainwashing that they have undergone.  Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded much earlier, doublespeak is not second nature to the Salafis.

The most recent example comes from Al Hafiz TV, an Egyptian Islamic station.  During a roundtable discussion on the U.S. and foreign aid to Egypt, an Islamic cleric, clearly of the Salafi bent—he had their trademark mustache-less-beard—insisted that the U.S. must be treated contemptuously, like a downtrodden dhimmi, or conquered infidel; that Egypt must make the U.S. conform to its own demands; and that, then, all the money the U.S. offers to Egypt in foreign aid can be taken as rightfully earned jizya.

For those of you who may be new to this site, I need to explain what these terms mean. Under Sharia law, which is the legal system the Salafis want to bring to Egypt, non-Muslims are to be given three choices–convert to Islam and conform to Sharia, submit as second-class citizens (dhimmis), or be killed. The jizya is the money paid to the Muslims by the dhimmis every year in a ceremony which is designed to demean them as people and to remind them that the government is generously allowing them to keep their heads. There is no honor in being a dhimmi.

The article further reports:

When the host asked the sheikh “Do the Americans owe us jizya?”  he responded, “Yes,” adding that it is the price Americans have to pay “so we can leave them alone!”  When the host asked the sheikh if he was proclaiming a fatwa, the latter exclaimed, “By Allah of course!” The sheikh added that, to become a truly Islamic state, Egypt must “impose on America to pay aid as jizya, before we allow it to realize its own interests, the ones which we agree to.”

If giving Egypt foreign aid is interpreted by the Egyptian clerics as our acceptance of dhimmi status, then we need to stop that aid immediately. It is not in our best interests as a country to continue feeding this idea. Under Sharia Law, Muslims are not at all obligated to be truthful to dhimmis or to threat them well.

Enhanced by Zemanta

About That Flexibility

Posted on by

America seems to have forgotten who her friends are and who her enemies are. On March 26, 2012, major news sources reported that President Obama had told outgoing Russian President Dmitry Medvedev he will have “more flexibility” to deal with contentious issues like missile defense after the U.S. presidential election. That remark was caught by an open mike. Well, it seems as if that flexibility has arrived.

Saturday’s New York Times reported that the United States has effectively canceled the final phase of a Europe-based missile defense system that was fiercely opposed by Russia and cited repeatedly by the Kremlin as a major obstacle to cooperation on nuclear arms reductions and other issues. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made the announcement. Those resources will be shifted to America to provide missile interceptors in response to recent threats made by North Korea. It is a good thing that we are protecting America, but I do wonder about the wisdom of leaving allies out in the cold with nothing but our broken promises.

The New York Times couches this as a good thing for our relationship with Russia and states that the Polish government is not all that upset about it. Regardless, we have broken a promise to an ally in order to please a government that does not represent freedom and is not an ally of America. I question the wisdom of that decision.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Is A War Injury Not A War Injury ?

Posted on by

On Friday, ABC News reported that as a result of an ABC news investigative report regarding the shootings at Fort Hood, Republicans in Congress are asking for more information on how the aftermath of the attack was handled. At issue is the Obama Administration’s decision to charge Major Nidal Hasan with ‘workplace violence’ instead of terrorism. That decision has a great deal of impact on those who were victims of the attack.

The decision that the shooting was ‘workplace violence’ prevents those shot by Major Hasan from being awarded purple hearts. It also gives the surviving victims lower priority when it comes to receiving medical care and a loss of benefits available to soldiers whose injuries are considered combat related. Because the shootings were considered workplace violence, they are not considered combat related.

The article reports:

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the Nov. 5, 2009 rampage by the accused gunman, Maj. Nidal Hasan, at the Army base in Killeen, Texas. Hasan, who was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder. Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

It is bad enough that Major Hasan pretty much broadcast ahead of time that he had gone over the edge–some of his lectures, his business cards, etc. He was not reported because no one was willing to take the chance of being called a racist or anti-Muslim. Because no one came forward, thirteen soldiers died as Hasan shouted, “Allahu Akbar.” It seems to me that it should be rather obvious to even the most naive member of the Obama Administration that most people who commit workplace violence don’t shout, “Allahu Akbar,” and that shout might have something to do with a motive for the killings.

Meanwhile, American soldiers and their families pay a price because the Obama Administration does not want to admit that Major Hasan is an example of a domestic terrorists in our military.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Obama Administration Targets Women And Children First

Posted on by

Actually, the Obama Administration targets the elderly, and women and children first. Today’s American Spectator posted an article about a recent announcement from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that it plans to cut an extra 2.2 percent from the Medicare Advantage (MA) program. This new cut, which came as a surprise to everyone except Obama’s health care commissars, will be added to the $200 billion in cuts Obamacare has already mandated for MA. What does this have to with low-income and minority seniors? The administration’s new Medicare cuts will come directly out of their pockets.

Medicare Advantage is one of the most popular health care plans among senior citizens. It is successful because it involves competition in the private sector.

The article reports:

… The MA plans are already taking a huge hit pursuant to Obamacare’s $200 billion cut, and they will be unable to absorb these newest slashes in the program without passing at least some of the costs to the patients in the form of increased co-pays and deductibles.

And it is by no means an exaggeration to say that these extra out-of-pocket costs will hit the seniors who can least afford them. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade group to which many MA carriers belong, recently issued a report confirming that reality: “Sixty-one (61) percent of all minority (nonwhite) beneficiaries enrolled in Medicare Advantage in 2011 had incomes of $20,000 or less; 59 percent of African-American and 75 percent of Hispanic Medicare Advantage beneficiaries had incomes of $20,000 or less.”

…”This reduction in funding will leave many vulnerable seniors with fewer benefits, higher out-of-pocket costs, and in some cases the loss of their current MA coverage.”

It will indeed. As AHIP reminds us, “The Congressional Budget Office projects that the reform law’s payment cuts alone will result in three million fewer people enrolled in Medicare Advantage.” The group goes on to point out that Obamacare is already expected to increase the out-of-pocket expenses endured by MA enrollees: “Actuaries at Oliver Wyman estimate that the health insurance tax will result in seniors facing $220 in higher out-of-pocket costs and reduced benefits next year and $3,500 in additional costs over the next ten years.”

It is time to repeal and replace Obamacare. Otherwise the American health care system will never be able to recover from the damage being done to it.Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Mess With My Haircuts

Posted on by

This article is based on a story posted at Hot Air on Sunday.

In 1995, as part of what was going on in the House of Representatives at the time, the House barber shop was revamped and privatized. For whatever reason, the Senate barber shop was not. Now, Hot Air is reporting that the Senate barber shop needed a $300,000 bailout from the Senate to keep operating. In response to this expense, Senate sergeant at arms Terry Gainer is attempting to privatize the Senate barber shop. (Why do the House and the Senate need separate barber shops in the first place?) So far, Mr. Gainer has bought out four employees in order to replace them with independent contractors, and he hopes to do more of that in the future.

The article reports:

…in merely the past fifteen years, has cost taxpayers over five million dollars. Senate Hair Care Services is technically open to the public, for those who know/care about it, but last year alone the salon needed a $300,000 bailout from the Senate coffers to cover their jacked-up costs.

Might I suggest that the Senate barber shop might be a prime candidate for some serious budget cuts.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Broken Hockey Sticks

Posted on by

This is one of those articles I occasionally write where I know nothing about the subject. I am not a scientist, but I do have a fairly effective truth alarm. The source of this story is reliable, and I trust the judgment of the author.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the latest global warming panic. A group of climate alarmists headed by geologist Shaun Marcott has tried to resurrect Michael Mann’s discredited hockey stick and has.sounded the alarm that the temperature of the oceans is rising at an alarming rate.

The article at Power Line reports:

Now Steve McIntyre, who was principally responsible for showing that Mann’s original hockey stick was a fraud, has gone over Marcott’s data on the key proxies he uses for 20th century temperatures, ocean cores. McIntyre found that Marcott and his colleagues used previously published ocean core data, but have altered the dates represented by the cores, in some cases by as much as 1,000 years.

Statistics are amazing things, and by making minor changes in them, you can get them to tell any story you choose to tell.

This is the graph from the article:

I will make no attempt to explain the graph, but strongly suggest that you follow the link to the Power Line article to read John Hinderaker’s explanation. Mr. Hinderaker also relies on my favorite site for any real information on climate change, wattsupwiththat.

The bottom line here is simple. The numbers are being fudged. The obvious questions are, “Who is fudging the numbers?” and “Why are the numbers being fudged?” What do the scientific community and the politicians gain by convincing us we are doomed unless we listen to them and do exactly what they say (I think I just answered my own question)? Do we really want to give that kind of control to anyone? I would be a whole lot more impressed by their insistence that we listen to them if they were practicing what they preach. Has anyone calculated Al Gore or Barack Obama’s carbon footprints lately?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something Rotten In Denmark

Posted on by

On Friday, Senator Graham told Fox News that Benghazi survivors were told by the Obama Administration to remain silent. On the same day, a website called Western Journalism posted a video stating that the Administration went as far as to change the name of one of the survivors of the attack so that the press would not be able to track him down. The statement comes about 5 1/2 minutes into the interview with Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah.

I have no idea what this is about. I can understand that if some of the survivors were CIA Agents, the government would want to keep their identities secret, but I also suspect that all of the survivors were not undercover, and there is no reason that they have been asked to remain silent and kept away from Congress and from the press. Where is the transparency?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Unions And Obamacare

Posted on by

There have been a lot of problems with Obamacare that have recently come to light–increased veterinarian bills, more part-time workers, not being able to keep your current health insurance, higher health insurance premiums, etc, and the Republicans have put repealing Obamacare into their latest budget proposal. However, the one thing that may actually cause a problem for Obamacare is the lack of support from unions as they realize the negative impact it will have on them and their members.

The March 25th Weekly Standard contains an article by Mark Hemingway that reports on some of the criticism of Obamacare coming from union leaders.

The article reports:

“I heard [Obama] say, ‘If you like your health plan, you can keep it,’ ” John Wilhelm, chairman of Unite Here Health, representing 260,000 union workers, recently told the Wall Street Journal. “If I’m wrong, and the president does not intend to keep his word, I would have severe second thoughts about the law.” Besides Wilhelm, some of the nation’s largest union bosses have taken to publicly criticizing the Affordable Care Act.

In actuality, current figures estimate that approximately 7 million Americans will lose their current health care policies by 2022.because of Obamacare. When the law was passed, the unions, because they are such a powerful political force, were supposed to be exempt from much of Obamacare. They are now finding out that those exemptions may have an expiration date.

The article points out:

The Obama administration has thus far issued waivers from Obama-care’s onerous requirements to unions representing 543,812 workers. By contrast, the administration has issued waivers for only 69,813 nonunion workers. While these waivers are a significant benefit, they accrue to a small fraction of the nation’s 14 million union workers. Further, many of the waivers have been granted on an annual basis, and no waiver has been granted for longer than two-and-a-half years. Eventually even union health plans are going to have to comply with Obama-care regulations.

The article also reports that the tax Obamacare places on what the law refers to as Cadillac health plans may begin to affect even average plans–another unforeseen problem.

The article concludes:

Beyond the specifics, what union leaders are really saying is that they have no confidence Obama-care will live up to its central promise​—​that the government can provide millions of uninsured Americans with health care coverage that both is affordable and meets their needs.

Surely organized labor must realize that Obama-care has only begun to be implemented. If the Democrats’ most ardent constituency and most prolific fundraisers are already having second thoughts about Obama-care​—​fearful that besides being expensive and unworkable, the law will make unions less attractive to workers and undermine collective bargaining​—​the law may be less secure than its apologists assume.

Obamacare is bad law and needs to be repealed. It will be interesting to see what happens as the politically powerful special interest groups in the Democrat Party begin to realize this.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Impact Of Obamacare On Your Doctor

Posted on by

On Thursday, the Wall Street Journal posted an article by Scott Gottlieb discussing the impact of Obamacare on doctors. The article points out that the regulations in Obamacare will move doctors toward being 40-hour week employees rather than being in charge of their own offices.

The article reports:

…Because when doctors practice in small offices, it is hard for Washington to regulate what they do. There are too many of them, and the government is too remote. It is far easier for federal agencies to regulate physicians if they work for big hospitals. So ObamaCare shifts money to favor the delivery of outpatient care through hospital-owned networks.

The irony is that in the name of lowering costs, ObamaCare will almost certainly make the practice of medicine more expensive. It turns out that when doctors become salaried hospital employees, their overall productivity falls.

This is another result of government by special interest groups. In this particular case, the special interest group is the unions.

The article explains:

All of this reduced productivity translates into the loss of what should be a critical factor in the effort to offer more health care while containing costs. Yet hospitals aren’t buying doctors’ practices because they want to reform the delivery of medical care. They are making these purchases to gain local market share and develop monopolies. They are also exploiting an arbitrage opportunity presented by Medicare‘s billing schemes, which pay more for many services when they are delivered at a hospital instead of an outpatient doctor’s office.

This billing structure exists because hospitals are politically favored in Washington. Their mostly unionized workforces give them political power, as does their status as big employers in congressional districts.

This is another example of a law regulating health care that was written without concern for the impact it would have on medical care for individuals in this country. The law was written with special interest groups and government control in mind. It needs to be repealed and rewritten with the needs of American citizens in mind.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Green Isn’t Green

Posted on by

On Monday the Wall Street Journal posted an article by Bjorn Lomborg,  director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center in Washington, D.C., is the author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist” (Cambridge Press, 2001) and “Cool It” (Knopf, 2007). The article explores the idea that electric cars actually have a smaller carbon footprint than regular cars.

The article reports:

A 2012 comprehensive life-cycle analysis in Journal of Industrial Ecology shows that almost half the lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions from an electric car come from the energy used to produce the car, especially the battery. The mining of lithium, for instance, is a less than green activity. By contrast, the manufacture of a gas-powered car accounts for 17% of its lifetime carbon-dioxide emissions. When an electric car rolls off the production line, it has already been responsible for 30,000 pounds of carbon-dioxide emission. The amount for making a conventional car: 14,000 pounds.

…If a typical electric car is driven 50,000 miles over its lifetime, the huge initial emissions from its manufacture means the car will actually have put more carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere than a similar-size gasoline-powered car driven the same number of miles. Similarly, if the energy used to recharge the electric car comes mostly from coal-fired power plants, it will be responsible for the emission of almost 15 ounces of carbon-dioxide for every one of the 50,000 miles it is driven—three ounces more than a similar gas-powered car.

Mr. Lomborg states that he is not opposed to electric cars–he believes that eventually we will find a way to design and manufacture them to be environmentally friendly. Unfortunately, right now we are spending money subsidizing the industry and the people who purchase electric cars rather than putting the money into research. It is quite possible that at some point in the future we will have an electric car that makes sense environmentally, but right now all we have is symbolism over substance.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Boston Globe Gets It Right

Posted on by

I live in Massachusetts. I don’t plan to live in Massachusetts too much longer as my husband will be retiring at the end of this year, and the Massachusetts tax structure does not make retirement here a reasonable option. Real estate taxes are high, the temporary increase in the rate of the state income tax has been with us for more than twenty years, and if the current governor has his way, things will only be getting worse.

Today’s Boston Globe posted an editorial by Barbara Anderson, executive director of Citizens for Limited Taxation. The article is entitled, “Manage money from previous tax hikes first.” That pretty much says it all, but she goes on to explain what she means.

The article reminds us of some of the history of tax increase in Massachusetts:

In 1989, Governor Michael Dukakis returned from the presidential campaign trail and demanded tax hikes to fund a billion-dollar budget increase; supporters rallied at the State House, some of them dressed as giant crayons, to protest potential cuts to the arts. The legislative leadership was able to get the votes for the tax package only after promising that the new income tax rate, increased from 5 percent to 5.75 percent, would be temporary. The Legislature raised the rate again the next year, “temporarily,” to 6.25 percent.

…Instead, in 2011 a formula created in 2002 dropped the rate to 5.25 percent, where it remains — 24 years after the first “temporary” increase, and 12 years after the voters demanded a rollback to 5 percent.

Ms. Anderson further reminds us:

The Massachusetts tax burden is the fourth highest in the nation per capita, eighth highest relative to personal income. The state is not suffering from a lack of taxes; it is suffering from a lack of accountability for the taxes already paid. The ongoing scandal over electronic-benefits cards is a maddening example of this.

I think taxpayers in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts might be a little less grumpy about their tax rate if we didn’t routinely see stories about the Commonwealth’s waste of taxpayer money. Part of that waste is due to the fact that politicians like to spend other people’s money, but another part is the fault of the voters who keep electing the same people year after year. Until someone holds the Massachusetts legislature accountable, they will continue to be out of control. It also would help to have two viable political parties in the Commonwealth, but that may be a pipe dream!

Enhanced by Zemanta

Avoiding Even The Obvious Budget Cuts

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the proposed Democrat budget plan and its relationship to welfare spending. The Obama Administration has already cut the work requirement in order to collect welfare, now they refusing to support another very obvious cost-cutting measure.

The article reports:

Jeff Sessions offered an amendment that addressed the Obama administration’s outrageous policy of advertising the easy availability of food stamps in foreign countries. This is how Sessions described the amendment:

Contrary to sound policy, the United States is spending money advertising food stamp benefits in foreign consulates. This amendment would prohibit any funds from being spent on this controversial promotion campaign.

Federal law has long prohibited immigration to the U.S. by anyone who is likely to become a public charge. Instead of enforcing this law, the Obama administration has willfully violated it by encouraging immigration to the U.S. by Mexicans and others, precisely because they will become public charges and thereby contribute to the expansion of the welfare system. The administration’s promotion of the food stamp program to foreign nationals is part of this effort.

Why in the world are we advertising American food stamp programs in foreign countries? It seems to me that if we wanted to control immigration (legal or illegal) offering free food or money would not be the way to do it. America needs immigrants, but we need legal immigrants who will contribute to society rather than expect to be supported by hard-working taxpayers.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Pope Is Catholic

Posted on by

It seems like an obvious statement, “The Pope is Catholic,” but the American news media almost seems surprised at his Biblical views.

NBC News posted an article about some of the ‘firsts’ the new Pope represents. Pope Francis is the first Latin American pope and the first Jesuit pope. He also is a believer in traditional Catholic theology–not to be swayed by what those outside the Church are doing or saying.

The article reports:

George Weigel, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Ethics and Public Policy Center who is a Vatican analyst for NBC News, agreed that the choice of Bergoglio “speaks to the church’s commitment to the poor of the world and compassion in a world that often needs a lot of healing.”

At the same time, “this is a John Paul II guy,” Weigel said, referring to Pope John Paul II, who elevated Bergoglio to archbishop in 1998 and cardinal in 2001. As archbishop of Buenos Aires, “he tried to call that community back to orthodoxy,” Weigel said.

The new pope has been a vocal opponent of abortion and especially of same-sex marriage, saying in 2010 that its role was to “seriously injure the family.” He said the practice deprived children of “the human growth that God wanted them given by a father and a mother.”

The Church (regardless of denomination) is supposed to stand for something. Right and wrong do not change, regardless of what society decides to do. It will be interesting to watch how Pope Francis expresses this view. It is also wonderful to see a pope who cares so deeply about the poor and is willing to adopt a humble, simple lifestyle. I am not Catholic, but I think Pope Francis is the right man for the job.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Senate Has Finally Produced A Budget

Posted on by

The Senate has finally produced a budget. John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today explaining what was in that budget.

The article states:

The process has proved revealing: the Democrats’ budget never balances, increases spending by 62% over ten years, and adds $7 trillion to the national debt despite raising taxes by $1.5 trillion. So Senate Democrats must agree with President Obama that the nation does not face a debt crisis.

The article quotes a statement President Obama made yesterday on ABC:

[W]e don’t have an immediate crisis in terms of debt. In fact, for the next ten years, it’s gonna be in a sustainable place….

There’s not–-in any way–-an immediate crisis with respect to our finances. …

Heritage.org posted an article yesterday explaining some of the details.

The article at Heritage.org states:

…Murray’s budget includes a massive tax increase. She raises taxes by almost $1 trillion ($975 billion to be exact) over the next 10 years by “closing loopholes.” Closing loopholes is Washington-speak for eliminating deductions, exemptions, and credits.

Which loopholes to close Murray leaves up to the Senate Finance Committee. But she is pursuing this tax increase unnecessarily. The Congressional Budget Office says that revenues will be 19 percent of GDP at the end of the current 10-year budget window. That is uncomfortably above the 18.5 percent of GDP that tax revenues have averaged in times of economic growth since the end of World War II. Murray’s budget would push revenues close to 20 percent of GDP by 2023, well above average—yet still not enough to catch up with her budget’s excessive spending.

Until Congress limits spending to 18 percent of the GDP (which is what we generally collect in tax revenue) we can expect deficits to grow. It is time to cut the spending in order to prevent the growth of deficits. Otherwise, we are simply creating a debt our children and grandchildren will never be able to repay.Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Hard To Be A Successful Liar In The Internet World

Posted on by

One of the side effects of the Internet is that it is very easy to check to see what people have said in the past and it is also relatively easy to find people who have knowledge of specific situations. It is also very easy for people who have knowledge of specific situations to share their knowledge with the public.

Yesterday Breitbart.com posted an article quoting Former Secret Service agent Dan Bongino on the cancellation of the White House tours. “The president’s absolutely not telling the truth when he said the Secret Service made that decision to cut [the White House] tours,” Bongino said. “That’s the core of it: he is not telling the truth.”

The article reports:

“The Secret Service does not make political decisions,” Bongino said. “The Secret Service makes security decisions. His statement that it was a Secret Service decision internal budget decision–and keep in mind, I’m not speaking for the Secret Service, I’m speaking from experience of being with them. All he’d have to do is cancel one or two of his political trips and his Martha’s Vineyard vacation, which two years ago I was on and helped coordinate, he would save that money times ten. There was just no way this was a sound decision. To insinuate this is the first administration where the White House social office and the Executive Office of the President had no role in cancelling public tours at the White House, that he was the first president who was left out of the decision, is absolute nonsense.”

President Obama is rapidly destroying any credibility that he might have had when he took office. It is a small lie, but it is a lie. It would be nice if President Obama would at least admit that he made the decision.Enhanced by Zemanta

Will The Person Who Actually Cancelled The White House Tours Please Stand Up

Posted on by

The Weekly Standard posted two articles today about the cancellation of the White House tours. One article quotes President Obama stating that he did not cancel the White House tours, and one article quotes Jay Carney, the White House Press Secretary, stating that the White House cancelled the tours. Would you people please get your stories straight.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Now That We Know This, What Should We Do ?

Posted on by

Yesterday PJMedia posted an article by J. Christian Adams about the newly released Inspector General‘s report on Tom Perez’s DOJ Civil Rights Division. Tom Perez is President Obama’s potential Labor secretary nominee.

The report exposes serious racial bias in the law enforcement practices of the Obama Justice Department.

The article reports:

The report was prepared in response to Representative Frank Wolf’s (R-VA) outrage over the New Black Panther voter intimidation dismissal.  In response to the report, Rep. Wolf said today, the “report makes clear that the division has become a rat’s nest of unacceptable and unprofessional actions, and even outright threats against career attorneys and systemic mismanagement.”

Former Voting Section Chief Chris Coates and I both testified about the hostility towards race-neutral law enforcement by the Justice Department.

Today’s report paints a disgusting portrait, confirming our accounts.

It is entirely possible that Tom Perez was simply following orders issued by Attorney General Holder, but do we want to promote someone who was unwilling to enforce the law equally for all Americans? Please follow the link to the article at PJMedia to read the entire account.

Enhanced by Zemanta