Today Power Line posted a picture of a sign at a California Hooters:
I have nothing to add.
However, the article at Power Line ends with the following update:
UPDATE: Just when you think the Filner story can’t get any crazier, news out this afternoon is that a great-grandmother is claiming Filner harassed her. And she’s going to be represented at the press conference by–wait for it now–Gloria Allred. (What took her so long? Probably the D after Filner’s name.)
Wow.
Unfortunately, the bloodshed in Egypt is just beginning. The Muslim Brotherhood will not go quietly–that is not their style. The thing to remember is that the Muslim Brotherhood had set up camps to protest the ouster of President Morsi. We need to consider what was happening in these protest camps. Terrorists were being trained, suicide missions were glorified, and preparations were being made for the propaganda war after the camps were broken up. That is the Muslim Brotherhood way.
Yesterday Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review Online reminding us how the Morsi supporters were behaving.
The article states:
When not similarly ignored, Islamic supremacist aggression against Egypt’s Christians — which was a prominent feature of Muslim Brotherhood governance — is disingenuously reported. Take this AFP report of the fact that the Brotherhood and its allies are torching Coptic churches. The AFP endeavors to exculpate the Islamic supremacists by editorializing, in the report, that these were “reprisal” attacks. But the Brotherhood was not ousted by the minority Copts. To be sure, the Copts far prefer to take their chances with a largely secular, technocratic government backed by the armed forces than the rampant persecution they endured while the Brotherhood was running the show. But it is the army, not the Copts, who ejected Morsi. AFP tries to obscure this by recounting that “the Coptic church backed Morsi’s removal, with Patriarch [i.e., Pope] Tawadros II appearing alongside army chief General Fattah al-Sisi as he announced the military coup.” As I observed in writing about the coup in the August 5 edition of National Review, however, Pope Tawadros was hardly alone — General Sisi also gathered by his side significant Islamic supremacist leaders: Grand Mufti Ahmed al-Tayeb of al-Azhar University and leaders of the Salafist al-Nour party (in addition to prominent secularists).
Men, women, and children are dying in Egypt as I write this. Some are innocent Coptic Christians, but many are Muslims being used as human shields in the ongoing propaganda war. It is truly unfortunate that lives are being lost in this struggle, but we need to understand that this struggle will eventually come to us. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is a world-wide caliphate. The Brotherhood plans to include America in that caliphate. There are many Muslims high in our government working toward that end. If you doubt that, watch the final episode of “The Muslim Brotherhood in America.” This 10-part series details the strategy of the Muslim Brotherhood to bring Sharia Law to America. The series is documented and provides proof of the claims it makes.
The military in Egypt is attempting to bring a democratic government to Egypt. I don’t think they had a choice but to close down the pro-Morsi camps. The people of Egypt are partially to blame for what is happening–they elected Morsi and they elected a parliament that wrote a constitution that would eventually turn Egypt into an Islamic state similar to Iran. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your point of view), the Egyptians began to realize that President Morsi was undoing what they had hoped would be a democracy. Egypt is a mess and will continue to be a mess until the Muslim Brotherhood is convinced that they have to go back underground. The lesson that needs to be learned here is that Sharia Law and democracy are incompatible. Sharia Law is also incompatible to our representative republic. We need to remember that.
On Sunday, Stephen Moore posted an article at the Wall Street Journal about the positive aspects of sequestration. The bottom line in the story is that because of sequestration the federal government is shrinking.
In fiscal 2013, the sequestration will save the government more than $50 billion.
The article explains the potential future impact of sequestration:
In other words, Mr. Obama has inadvertently chained himself to fiscal restraints that could flatten federal spending for the rest of his presidency. If the country sees any normal acceleration of economic growth (from the anemic 1.4% growth rate so far this year), the deficit is on a path to drop steadily at least through 2015. Already the deficit has fallen from its Mount Everest peak of 10.2% of gross domestic product in 2009, to about 4% this year. That’s a bullish six percentage points less of the GDP of new federal debt each year.
…Discretionary spending soared to $1.347 billion in fiscal 2011, according to the CBO, but was then cut by $62 billion in 2012 and another $72 billion this year. That’s an impressive 10% shrinkage. And these are real cuts, not pixie-dust reductions off some sham baseline. Discretionary spending as a share of the economy hit 9.4% of GDP in fiscal 2010 but fell to 7.6% this year and is scheduled to slide to 6.4% in Mr. Obama’s last year in office.
There are still major problems with entitlement programs going broke (I would like to repeat myself here and say that Social Security is not an entitlement program. If you are going to call it an entitlement program, just give everyone the money they have paid into it over the years and stop payments.). Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will eventually have to be reworked in order to make them viable, but I seriously doubt that will happen under a Democrat president. Partial privatization of all three programs would extend their viability, but would need politicians willing to take a political risk for the good of the country. Right now that’s not what we have in Washington.
Yesterday Breitbart.com posted a story about the recent controversy regarding a rodeo clown at the Missouri State Fair. The clown wore a President Obama mask.
Breitbart.com reports:
To be honest, I think the rodeo clown with the Obama mask is tacky. I think it was tacky when rodeo clowns wore George Bush masks. However, free speech is a part of American life. Where were all these people demanding investigations when this was done to George Bush? Why is this any different because President Obama is black (actually half black if you want to be technical)? If we had true equality of races, there would be no distinction between making fun of President Obama and making fun of President Bush. However, this is not really about race–it’s about politics–the political left always cries fowl when they are treated the way they routinely treat the political right.
There is nothing racial in this–the same thing was done to President Bush. I think it is tacky whatever race is involved. It may be considered satire in some circles, but it is definitely tacky.
On Friday Long Island Newsday posted an article about this year’s participants in the 26th annual Runner’s Edge Tobay Triathlon which will be held on August 24 at Oyster Bay, Long Island.
Triathlon coach Jose L. Lopez of Mineola, who won the first Tobay Tri in 1988, notes that the demographic of the Triathlon has changed.
The article reports:
Cases in point in this year’s race: Julian Acevedo, 26, a former diver and mountain climber; Dave Patton, 46, a martial artist and Kathy Griswold, 40, a yoga teacher.
All three are doing Tobay for the first time; each found the sport through a different route.
…Griswold was a high school shot putter and softball player back in Massachusetts. This past winter, when her gym held a mini indoor tri — participants swam in the pool, pedaled a stationary bike and ran on a treadmill — she jumped in and enjoyed it.
“I decided maybe I should do a real one.” said Griswold, a Plainview resident who teaches yoga at two local studios.
“I will finish, and I will have a blast doing it,” she said.
Hooray for amateur athletes who are willing to rise to the challenge of something new.
The Daily Caller reported today that the limits on the out-of-pocket costs to consumers under ObamaCare will be delayed until 2015. If this is such a great program, how come major parts of it keep getting delayed?
The article reports:
The limit on out-of-pocket expenses was not to have exceeded $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family, however, the New York Times reports, federal officials placed a one-year delay on these caps providing insurers the ability to set their own limits in 2014.
The delay was noted on the Department of Labor’s website since February, however, as the Times notes, it went unnoticed until now.
…“We’ll place a limit on how much you can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses, because no one in America should go broke because they get sick,” Obama said in an August 2009 weekly address; a sentiment Obama repeated that September before a joint session of Congress, the Times reported.
The problem with putting caps on a person’s medical expenses is that someone has to pay those expenses. I don’t like the idea of people going bankrupt because of medical expenses, but I am not sure that is the federal government’s responsibility. I also wonder who will actually paying these expenses.
It seems as if there are a lot of unresolved problems and questions regarding ObamaCare. I am really uncomfortable with ObamaCare going forward when it seems to consist of delays, exceptions for the people who passed it and their staffs, and broken promises.
From the Heritage Foundation:
I think this is a really good idea:
Friends,
Over the past several months we have been reaching out to you, asking that you support a National Day of Prayer and Repentance this 9/11. The response we have received is overwhelming. With over tens of thousands of people signed up, we continue to receive an outpouring of support from across the nation. We come to you as fellow Americans and believers in Christ.
As we approach the 12th anniversary of the September 11 attacks, and the first anniversary of the attacks in Benghazi, we understand that our need for the presence of God in this country is greater than ever. We continue to witness tragedies occurring within this country; the fire in Arizona that killed 19 firefighters, the West Fertilizer Company plant explosion that killed 15 individuals, increasing interracial violence, murders, abductions, and much more. We need God’s presence in our country more than ever.
Christ once said, “If you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”
We need to call upon our fellow believers, fall to our knees, and seek God’s face. We have the power to change the dynamics of this country. So long as we have faith the size of a mustard seed, we can move mountains. It is up to us, believers in Christ and children of God, to humble ourselves, to seek God’s face, and to repent of our wicket ways.
Will you join us? Will you open up your churches, your homes, on 9/11 to those who feel called to participate? Will you pray with us for the sake of the nation?
There is a Facebook page you access to show your support. The e-mail was from World Net Daily.
There are a lot of reasons Americans are upset over government overspending. The deficit has been relatively stable in recent months, but has grown exponentially during the Obama Administration. Recently, there have been some real questions as to whether or not our tax dollars are being spent wisely.
On Saturday I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a California surfer who is happily living off the largess of the American taxpayer. There is no work requirement for him to collect benefits, and he has no intention of going to work. Americans are generous people who care about the less fortunate, but I think most of us resent paying for the lifestyle of someone who simply would rather not work. There is also the matter of wasteful spending.
On Sunday the U.K. Telegraph reported that the White House dog, Bo, had been airlifted to Martha’s Vineyard via two MV-22 Ospreys. This was the first time the Ospreys have been taken on holiday by a US president.
The U.K. Daily Mail reports:
It is estimated the cost of the entire vacation, including the 75 rooms booked at a nearby hotel for staff and security, could reach $2 million.
I don’t think that two million includes the cost of the two Ospreys used to fly in the dog.
These two examples of spending that could easily by limited illustrate the problem with the budget debate in Washington. Most Washington politicians have no desire to cut federal spending–the more money they control, the more power they believe they have. Some of the Tea Party Congressmen are exceptions to the rule that politicians always want to spend more, but there are not enough Tea Party Congressmen to make a difference. If we want to see Washington change, we need to send different people to Washington. As long as we keep sending the same people to Washington, we will get the same result. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The American voter is currently the biggest obstacle to reforming spending in Washington. Don’t blame Congress–you elected them.
Just for the record, I don’t begrudge President Obama a vacation–I just think they should have taken the dog on Air Force One and avoided a separate flight by the Ospreys.
Yes, I know that there was a coup in Egypt. If a coup is defined as a group of unelected people seizing power from an elected group of people, there was a coup in Egypt. However, when the elected group (the Muslim Brotherhood) begins to change the government to end democracy, someone has to act to preserve democracy. That is what happened. in Egypt. The problems that led to the problem begin almost immediately after Hosni Mubarak was ousted in 2011. To understand exactly what happened, it is important to look at the history of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928. It was founded to re-establish the imperial Islamic state. It was established as a reaction to the fact that the government of Turkey was established as a secular government after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. The goal of the Muslim Brotherhood is to establish a world-wide caliphate through political and violent means. If you google the exhibits in the Holy Land Foundation Trial and read them, you will discover the Muslim Brotherhood’s plan for America.
Under Hosni Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood was in jail in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat after he signed a peace treaty with Israel, and the military put Hosni Mubarak in power. Mubarak put the Brotherhood in jail. When President Obama spoke in Cairo in 2009, he put the Muslim Brotherhood in the front row–signaling to the Brotherhood that he would support them. Despite vague statements from the Obama Administration to the contrary, that support has not changed.
On Friday, a website called The Middle East Forum posted a story about how the average Egyptian feels about what is going on in his country and the role America is playing in Egypt.
The article in the Middle East Forum reports:
First, most offensive to Egyptians—and helpful to the Brotherhood’s cause—is McCain‘s insistence on calling the June 30 Revolution a “military coup.” In reality, the revolution consisted of perhaps thirty million Egyptians taking to the streets to oust the Brotherhood. McCain is either deliberately misconstruing the event, or believes the story as manufactured by Al Jazeera and promulgated by Ambassador Anne Patterson. In this narrative, at least an equal amount of Egyptians supported Morsi, and the military overthrew him against popular will. Al Jazeera has actually broadcast images of the millions of anti-Morsi protesters and identified them as pro-Morsi protesters, disinformation which was quickly adopted by Western media.
Several Al Jazeera correspondents have resigned due to Al Jazeera acting as the Brotherhood’s international mouthpiece.
Fortunately, some American officials have formally rejected this false narrative. A new congressional resolution states:
Whereas in recent weeks, an estimated 30,000,000 Egyptians in a majority of Egypt’s 27 provinces gathered to protest the widespread failures of former President Mohamed Morsi and the Government of Egypt and its violations of the most basic rights of all Egyptian citizens, including Egyptian women, minorities, and those publicly dissenting from its views and policies; Whereas the participants in the June 30, 2013, popular protests far outnumbered those involved in the protests and demonstrations of January and February 2011 …
Even the Obama administration has been sensible enough not to call the June 30 revolution a “military coup.” Nevertheless, McCain rejected John Kerry’s statement that “the [Egyptian] military did not take over.”
What happened in Egypt was a movement by the people of Egypt to attempt to form a democracy in the face of an elected government trying to undo the concept of democracy. In supporting the idea of even letting the Muslim Brotherhood take part in the Egyptian government, we would be supporting persecution of Christians and other minority religions, the institution of Sharia Law, which takes away the equality of women, and the formation of an Islamic state similar to Iran. I really don’t think that is in the best interest of the Egyptians, the Americans, or peace in the Middle East.
We need to remember that terrorists in the Middle East (and other places) have learned to use the weapon of propaganda very well. The Middle East Forum is one of the few reliable sources for unbiased information on what is going on in the Middle East.
Please note: for whatever reason this video does not show up when you use Internet Explorer as your browser. To see the video, switch to Mozilla Firefox. I don’t know why my website fights with Internet Explorer, but it does. Sorry.
Saying good-bye to an American television tradition:
Normally it’s a good thing when different groups work together. Sometimes, however, it isn’t. Some recent events in New York State show what happens when the interests of the general population take second place to the interests of a powerful special interest group.
Yesterday Townhall, com reported that the State of New York and the public sector unions have prevented serious disciplinary action against state home-workers who mistreated their patients. On Thursday the New York Times had posted an update on a report they had done earlier on this matter.
The New York Times article reports:
The Times conducted a new review this year by looking at 227 cases decided since the beginning of 2012 in which the state had sought to fire an offending employee. The numbers remain the same. Only 23 percent of the workers recommended for dismissal by the state actually ended up being fired.
The latest review also included a second agency, the State Office of Mental Health, whose workers care for the mentally ill. The numbers were hardly different there. About 27 percent of 104 workers recommended for dismissal actually were fired, according to a review of cases at that agency. In all, The Times reviewed about 4,000 pages of records.
A recommendation to fire an employee occurs following an internal disciplinary inquiry into allegations made against the worker. The employee is represented by the union and has the right to contest the firing before an arbitrator, who can uphold the charges, reject some or all of them, or impose a lesser punishment. In some cases, the state and union will settle on a punishment before the arbitrator rules.
As long as the unions remain major donors to the political party that runs the state, the state has no incentive to make sure union workers are properly disciplined when they behave inappropriately.
The New York Times article concludes:
Michael Carey, an advocate and the father of Jonathan Carey, whose death led to Jonathan’s Law, has been one of the Cuomo administration’s most strident critics. He has long been troubled that abuse reports are not made directly to the police, instead of filtered through a state bureaucracy. “It’s a clear violation of these individuals’ rights,” he said. He also opposed a move by the Cuomo administration that increased the standard of proof required in some child abuse cases in an effort to make the standard more consistent across a wider range of investigations.
Mr. Carey said tangible ideas intended to prevent abuse, like installing cameras in group homes, were also being ignored.
“Rampant abuse and neglect goes on,” he said. “There has not been anything significant done to stop it.”
The article at Townhall.com cncludes:
By the way–Governor Cuomo struck a deal with the CSEA (Civil Service Employees Association) six months after he was re-elected on the platform that he would address the issue of abuse. The deal included “CSEA protection from broad layoffs,” as well as the implementation of a new “Select Panel on Patient Abuse” to specifically protect the disabled and mentally ill. Two years later, CSEA employees have avoided layoffs, and the man appointed by Cuomo to lead the Justice Center for the Protection of People With Special Needs has a record of lobbying against employee accountability, and actually “lobbied against Jonathan’s Law, the legislation that forced the state to start disclosing abuse reports to parents, named after a teenager with autism who died after being asphyxiated by a state worker.” Meanwhile, the record for firing employees guilty of abuse remains at an abysmal 25%.
This is not a good situation for the residents of New York.
Under President Obama, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is becoming a political weapon. This is not the first time a President has attempted to use the IRS for political purposes, but President Obama has succeeded in this to an amazing extent.
Now, under ObamaCare, the IRS will be used as a weapon against charitable hospitals who treat the uninsured.
On Thursday, the Daily Caller reported:
A new provision in Section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code, which takes effect under Obamacare, sets new standards of review and installs new financial penalties for tax-exempt charitable hospitals, which devote a minimum amount of their expenses to treat uninsured poor people. Approximately 60 percent of American hospitals are currently nonprofit.
Charity for the uninsured is one of the factors that could discourage enrollment in Obamacare, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or else face new taxes themselves from the IRS.
The article further reports:
Healthcare experts warn that the Obamacare’s new requirements make it almost impossible for charitable hospitals to navigate treacherous new waters.
“Nonprofit hospitals should be advised that the new PPACA requirements will play a significant role in how they operate and report, specifically when it comes to billing and collections for services provided to the uninsured. The new law leaves many gray areas and hospitals themselves will have to establish eligibility criteria for financial assistance. Following the new procedures as best they can will ensure the best chance of maintaining their tax exempt status,” wrote D. Douglas Metcalf, partner at the law firm Lewis and Roca, in a 2013 op-ed entitled “Will nonprofit hospitals disappear under Obamacare?”
The White House did not return a request for comment.
The more we learn about ObamaCare, the worse it gets. I hate the idea of shutting down the government to defund ObamaCare, but I really am beginning to wonder if it would be worth it.
On Friday, Fox News posted the following video (also in YouTube):
So how is it possible to live on the generosity of the American taxpayer with no concept of working for a living? In September 2012, Ed Morrissey at Hot Air noted the impact of the 2009 Stimulus Bill on the Food Stamp Program. Included in the Stimulus Bill were changes in the welfare program that waived the work requirement and made it easier for people with no intention of working to collect benefits.
The article at Hot Air reports:
In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, according to the CRS report, issued in the form of a memo to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.
“This report once again confirms that President Obama has severely gutted the welfare work requirements that Americans have overwhelmingly supported since President Clinton signed them into law,” Cantor said in an emailed statement. “It’s time to reinstate these common-sense measures, and focus on creating job growth for those in need.”
This is the law that allows a beach bum in California to surf his life away and eat lobster on the money paid in taxes by families struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
I think it’s time for Congress to grow a backbone and change the law back to what it was. That alone will save millions of dollars in federal spending.
This is part of the transcript of today’s Presidential Press Conference posted at the Washington Post today:
With respect to health care, I didn’t simply choose to delay this on my own. This was in consultation with businesses all across the country, many of whom are supportive of the Affordable Care Act, but — and who — many of whom, by the way, are already providing health insurance to their employees but were concerned about the operational details of changing their HR operations if they’ve got a lot of employees, which could be costly for them, and them suggesting that there may be easier ways to do this.
Now what’s true, Ed, is that in a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what? This is a tweak that doesn’t go to the essence of the law. It has to do with, for example, are we able to simplify the attestation of employers as to whether they’re already providing health insurance or not. It looks like there may be some better ways to do this. Let’s make a technical change of the law.
That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do, but we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to, quote- unquote, “Obamacare.”
We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so. But this doesn’t go to the core of implementation.
Let me tell you what is the core of implementation that’s already taken place. As we speak, right now, for the 85 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, they are benefiting from being able to keep their kid on their — on their plan if their kid is 26 or younger. That’s benefiting millions of young people around the country, which is why lack of insurance among young people has actually gone down. That’s in large part attributable to the steps that we’ve taken. You’ve got millions of people who’ve received rebates because part of the Affordable Care Act was to say that if an insurance company isn’t spending 80 percent of your premium on your health care, you get some money back. And lo and behold, people have been getting their money back. It means that folks who’ve been bumping up with lifetime limits on their insurance that leaves them vulnerable — that doesn’t exist. Seniors have been getting discounts on their prescription drugs. That’s happening right now. Free preventive care, mammograms, contraception — that’s happening right now.
I met a young man today on a bill signing I was doing with the student loan bill who came up to me and said, thank you — he was — he couldn’t have been more than 25, 26 years old — thank you; I have cancer; thanks to the Affordable Care Act, working with the California program, I was able to get health care, and I’m now in remission. And so right now people are already benefiting.
Now, what happens on October 1st, in 53 days, is for the remaining 15 percent of the population that doesn’t have health insurance, they’re going to be able to go on a website or call up a call center and sign up for affordable, quality health insurance at a significantly cheaper rate than what they can get right now on the individual market.
And if, even with lower premiums, they still can’t afford it, we’re going to be able to provide them with a tax credit to help them buy it. And between October 1st, end of March, there will be an open enrollment period in which millions of Americans for the first time are going to be able to get affordable health care.
Now, I think the really interesting question is why it is that my friends in the other party have made the idea of preventing these people from getting health care their holy grail. Their number-one priority. The one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don’t have health care; and presumably, repealing all those benefits I just mentioned — kids staying on their parents’ plan, seniors getting discounts on their prescription drugs, I guess a return to lifetime limits on insurance, people with pre-existing conditions continuing to be blocked from being able to get health insurance.
That’s hard to understand as a — an agenda that is going to strengthen our middle class. At least they used to say, well, we’re going to replace it with something better. There’s not even a pretense now that they’re going to replace it with something better.
This is such total garbage I don’t know where to start. ObamaCare is not going to strengthen the Middle Class in America. It may well destroy it. Employers are increasing the number of part-time employees in order to avoid the mandate that says they must provide insurance for full-time employees.
On July 1, Forbes Magazine reported:
Three months from today—October 1, 2013—is X-Day, the day that Obamacare’s subsidized health insurance exchanges are supposed to become fully operational. And today brings more news of “rate shock,” the phemonenon by which Obamacare dramatically increases the underlying cost of health insurance for people who buy it on their own. Louise Radnofsky of the Wall Street Journal looked at insurance rates in eight states, and found that while some sicker people will get a better deal, “healthy consumers could see insurance rates double or even triple when they look for individual coverage.”
The President neglected to mention that one way that the government is attempting to save money on healthcare is to decrease the amount of money it pays to hospitals and doctors for providing care. The result of that is that some doctors and hospitals will stop taking Medicare patients and other patients covered by government health care. Every American may have a card saying that they have health insurance, but they will have a hard time finding a medical facility that will accept that card.
The President is lying to us. ObamaCare is a bad deal for all Americans. As all of us begin the experience its ‘benefits,’ I hope we will remember to vote out every member of Congress who voted for it. We also need to remember that, thanks to the President, Congress is exempt from ObamaCare. That should tell us all we need to know.
Below is an excerpt from a Fact Sheet on H.R. 2417:
H.R. 2417 SHIELD-Act Fact Sheet
EMP Commission and DOD, DHS, DOE, NAS all report that the electric infrastructure is highly vulnerable to a man-made or naturally occurring EMP event.
o The consequences of an EMP event can be catastrophic.
DOD relies overwhelmingly on the commercial grid for its operations
o 99% of DOD electricity is from sources outside DOD installations
o 85% of DOD electricity is from sources outside DOD control
EMP events are likely to occur
o Rogue states continue to develop ways to attack the US with EMP producing
weapons. (North Korea and Iran especially)
o A Geomagnetic storm or severe space weather is possible and solar maximum (the normal period of greatest solar activity in the 11 year solar cycle of the Sun) is approaching (including a recent CME near-impact)
An EMP incident is likely to occur at some time in the future. This is one item Congress should actually be spending money on. An EMP can be a naturally occurring event caused by solar activity or it can be caused by a nuclear explosion above the earth at a certain atmosphere.
This is a subject that needs to come up during the Town Hall meetings Congress is holding during its August recess.
Yesterday the New York Daily News posted a story about Kristie Trup and Katie Gee, both 18, two teenagers who were assaulted in Zanzibar. The British teenagers were volunteering at a school in Zanzibar.
The article reports:
The attack comes during the tourist season in the historic town and after a Zanzibar Muslim leader, Sheikh Fadhil Suleiman Soraga, was hospitalized with acid burns in a November attack.
Two Christian leaders were killed early this year in separate attacks.
A separatist group in Zanzibar, Uamsho (Awakening), is pushing for the archipelago to exit from its 1964 union with mainland Tanzania, which is ruled as a secular country. Uamsho wants to introduce Islamic Sharia law in Zanzibar.
Educating girls and women goes against the basic tenets of Sharia Law.
The International Business Times reported today:
The men who attacked Katie Gee and Kristie Trup with acid in Zanzibar were part of a radical Islamic group that wants to impose stricter Muslim laws on the Indian Ocean island.
Five men have been arrested by police in relation to the attack – two men threw acid in Gee and Trup’s faces before speeding off on a moped.
Sharia Law is incompatible with democracy and freedom. We need to be aware of that as certain groups in America attempt to bring it here.
This is a map from the ACLU:
The map describes the shaded area as the Constitution-Free Zone in the United States. So what is this about?
The ACLU Website posted a fact sheet on these zones which states:
This is disturbing.
The article also states:
This trend is also typical of the Bush Administration’s dragnet approach to law enforcement and national security. Instead of intelligent, competent, targeted efforts to stop terrorism, illegal immigration, and other crimes, what we have been seeing in area after area is an approach that turns us all into suspects. This approach seeks to sift through the entire U.S. population in the hopes of encountering the rare individual whom the authorities have a legitimate interest in.
The article concludes:
If the current generation of Americans does not challenge this creeping (and sometimes galloping) expansion of federal powers over the individual through the rationale of “border protection,” we are not doing our part to keep alive the rights and freedoms that we inherited, and will soon find that we have lost some or all of their right to go about their business, and travel around inside their own country, without interference from the authorities.
Notice that the date on this is 2008. As far as I know, the Obama Administration has continued the policies of the Bush Administration in this area and added other forms of surveillance as well. Where is the update on this concern?
One of the things that seems to be missing in the comments by the few politicians who actually support ObamaCare is the understanding that insurance companies are businesses–their goal is to make a profit. If the rules of the game are such that the insurance companies cannot make a profit, they can easily choose not to participate in the marketplace involved. We are now seeing that dynamic in ObamaCare.
CNS News reported yesterday that Blue Cross, Aetna, United, and Humana, the major health insurance companies, will not be participating in the health-insurance exchanges in various states.
Aetna, an insurance company founded in Connecticut, has pulled out of the exchanges in Connecticut, Georgia and Maryland, saying that the limitations that would be imposed on them by those states would not allow them to make a profit. The company never planned to participate in the California exchanges, and will not be doing so. They are, after all, a private company in business to make a profit.
Senator Max Baucus recently stated about ObamaCare, “I just tell ya, I just see a huge train wreck coming down.” He is one of the Senators who supported ObamaCare when it was passed. I think he is right.
The purpose of this article is not to bring up the Candy Crowley incident again. Ms. Crowley made a mistake that had major political ramifications. That is unfortunate, but every one of us has at some time said things we regretted. If you haven’t, I congratulate you, but I have to admit that my foot occasionally finds its way into my mouth. The mainstream media has played more of a role in presidential politics than they should when they have moderated debates. When George Stepanopoulos asked Mitt Romney about birth control early in 2012, he paved the way for the charges that the Republicans were waging a ‘war on women.’ So what would happen if the debate platform were taken out of the hands of the mainstream media?
DaTechGuy posted a story today about the recent statement by Reince Priebus that if NBC and CNN move forward on their documentary on Hillary Clinton, he will deny those networks access to Republican presidential debates. Those networks realize the part the debates play in skewing the picture Americans have of the candidates. Having the mainstream media moderate the debates as well as report the news probably adds at least 10 points to the approval ratings of Democrat candidates.
Yesterday Breitbart.com commented:
And if past is prologue, CNN and NBC hosting GOP primary debates is a much more effective way to put Clinton in the White House than a Hillary miniseries and documentary.
The left understand that CNN and NBC are at their most effective at winning elections for Democrats when they hide behind a phony shield of objectivity. For good reason, the left is concerned these Hillary projects might weaken that shield.
DaTechGuy comments:
The problem becomes if you pull out of these debates or keep these people from moderating them then the MSM storyline becomes: “GOP candidates duck real journalists.” and that would be the meme on every single network and their excuse to duck out of coverage.
However the Hillary Movies solve this problem admirably. It provides an excuse, a justification, well of COURSE we can’t have our debates with the people from CNN or NBC. as Renice put it:
It will be extremely interesting to see how this all turns out.
I don’t support the current immigration bill. Because we currently have an administration that selectively enforces the law, I am afraid that the enforcement parts of the immigration bill will not be enforced. However, we desperately need to revise our immigration laws. One example of bureaucratic nonsense relating to immigration appeared yesterday in the Washington Free Beacon.
The story involves Hafez (a pseudonym to protect his identity), who served as an Afghan translator for Marine Corporal Dakota Meyer during the battle of Ganjgal. Dakota Meyer is the first living Marine to receive the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam war.
The article reports:
But Meyer says his friend Hafez is still waiting to receive a U.S. visa he applied for years ago. The former translator remains in Afghanistan under daily threat from the Taliban while his application is caught in the bureaucratic limbo of the State Department.
“He stood next to me, by my side pretty much the entire time [during the Battle of Ganjgal],” Meyer, 25, said in an interview with the Washington Free Beacon on Monday. “He helped me carry my guys out.”
“If we can’t help get this guy back who sacrificed so much to bring these Americans home, I’m sure he’ll be killed,” he said.
As the American presence in Afghanistan decreases, translators have been targeted by the Taliban . We need to grant this man (and his family) political asylum in America as soon as possible. We won’t have anyone in the world willing to help us anywhere if we continue to behave like this.
Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about a Democrat effort to limit political donations by businesses after those donations were allowed by the Supreme Court’s Citizen’s United decision.
The House Oversight Committee is investigating events that occurred under the previous chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Events similar to those at the Internal Revenue Service–senior officials rolling over career staff to politicize the agency–evidently also occurred at the Securities and Exchange Commission.
The article reports:
Last year politicians like then-Rep. Barney Frank and liberal tax-exempt groups like Public Citizen were encouraging the SEC to demand more disclosure from public companies about the organizations they support. Staff for Mr. Frank specifically told the SEC that, “There is particular interest in what the authority is for disclosure of 501(c)(4) contributions (political contributions).” Mr. Frank’s staff also noted that the interest was coming from the House Democratic leadership.
A former Democratic Congressman gave the political motive away while lobbying the SEC’s then-chairman Mary Schapiro. The former lawmaker, unnamed in a memorandum accompanying the Issa letter, was asked by Ms. Schapiro why this wasn’t a job for the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The former pol responded, “because the FEC is even more broken than you,” according to a May 2012 email sent by the deputy director of the SEC’s division of corporation finance. Democrats couldn’t get what they wanted out of the Congress or the FEC. So they went to the SEC.
This sort of behavior is unacceptable. Hopefully the House Oversight Committee will be able to hold the people who initiated this sort of illegal political activity accountable.
I have always been bothered by the legal concept of ‘hate crime’ for two reasons. First of all, if you are dead, does it really matter if the person who killed you hated you? Second of all, I really don’t believe that a jury can correctly judge the motives of a criminal 100 percent of the time. Charge the criminal with the crime he committed, and let God judge the motive.
This brings me to the trial of Nidal Hasan, charged with the ‘workplace violence’ killing of thirteen people and wounding of more than thirty others. Major Hasan is acting as his own lawyer in the trial.
One of the things Andrew McCarthy (who led the prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, the Blind Sheik who planned the first attack on the World Trade Center) has said repeatedly is that during the prosecution of the Blind Sheik the prosecution team studied the Koran to see if the Blind Sheik was an extremist or if he was actually (as he claimed) simply following the Koran. To their dismay, they found ample justification for the killing of infidels in the Koran. Mr. McCarthy pointed out that the key to the prosecution was defining the purpose of the attack. The rest of the government prosecutors evidently have not learned that lesson.
Fox News posted an article yesterday describing the first day of the trial:
After a short opening statement in which ex-Army Maj. Nidal Hasan called himself a “mujahedeen,” admitted to the rampage and said “the dead bodies will show that war is an ugly thing,” Hasan cross-examined prosecution witnesses, including retired Lt. Col Ben Kirk Phillips, his former boss. When pressed by the defendant, Phillips acknowledged that his officer evaluation report had graded Hasan as “outstanding.”
But he declined to cross-examine one of his shooting victims, Sgt. Alonzo Lunsford, who provided the day’s most damning testimony.
Lunsford – who was shot seven times during the incident – described what happened that day, saying he first saw Hasan sitting in a chair, with his arms on his knees while looking at the floor.
He said Hasan then jumped up and ordered the one civilian in the room to leave before shouting, “Allahu akbar” and opening fire. Panic set in among the soldiers, who crowded toward a rear door, which was jammed.
The trial has taken a rather bizarre turn today as Major Hasan’s court-appointed lawyers have asked to be taken off the case.
10 News in Tampa reports:
In a motion filed late Tuesday, Poppe (lead defense attorney Lt. Col. Kris Poppe) and his team said they feel Hasan is trying to purposely get the death penalty and asked the judge, Col. Tara Osborn, to not force them to be part of that effort. Poppe, addressing Osborn on Wednesday, said it became clear that Hasan is seeking the death penalty for himself after hearing the accused opening statement and cross examination of witnesses.
“Assisting him in achieving the goal of moving closer to the death penalty is something a defense trial attorney should not be forced to do,” Poppe said.
But Hasan objected to the defense team’s assertions.
The government is calling the Fort Hoot shootings workplace violence. When lawyers for the wounded soldiers have challenged that ruling, the government has said that calling it terrorism would jeopardize the legal case against Major Hasan. There is another aspect to this, however. If the Fort Hood shooting is a terrorist attack, those wounded soldiers are entitled to Purple Hearts and the benefits that come with being wounded in an attack. Right now, the injured are being denied those benefits.
As witnesses to the attack testify that Major Hasan was yelling “Allahu akbar” during the attack, the idea that this was workplace violence becomes ludicrous. It’s time that the government prosecutors admitted what happened at Fort Hood so that our wounded soldiers could receive the benefits and medals they are entitled to.
It’s not over until the fat lady sings. Well, she is about to enter the green room to warm up. Yesterday I reported on the decision of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission to rule out Plainridge Racecourse as a suitable applicant for a slot machine license (rightwinggranny.com). I support the slot machines for a variety of reasons and was very disheartened to read that the Gaming Commission had disqualified Plainridge. However, after reading about the reasons for the decision, I could totally understand why that decision was made.
If the decision stands, the Town of Plainville is the loser in this deal. Plainridge has operated in the town for fifteen years. Plainridge Racecourse is the only harness racing track in operation in Massachusetts. It has not made a profit during its time in Plainville, but has continually been a good neighbor to the town. It has paid taxes to the town and provided employment for a number of people in the town. There is a serious question as to whether or not Plainridge Racecourse will stay in business without the slot machine license. If Plainridge closes, is there a future for harness racing in Massachusetts? What happens to all of the beautiful horse farms in Plainville? So where are we now?
Domenic Longobardi was kind enough to give me a few minutes of his time today so I could ask him some questions about the past and future of Plainridge. He expressed disappointment that the Massachusetts Gaming Commission did not try to work with Plainridge to resolve the issue of misdeeds under previous management. He also pointed out that the people involved in those misdeeds are no longer in charge. He reminded me that from the time Plainridge was built the idea was to eventually bring in other avenues of gambling in order to keep the track afloat.
I asked Mr. Longobardi if the 9% of slot machine money that will go to support harness racing would be enough to keep Plainridge alive. He explained that the 9% of slot machine money would go to the harness racing purses–not to operating expenses at the tracks.
Mr. Longobardi mentioned the investment Plainridge has made in order to move forward with the slot machine permit. Plainridge has paid application fees to the Commonwealth of Massachuestts, paid consulting fees for the Town of Plainville, and invested money in a large parking garage to accommodate additional people visiting the facility.
Mr. Longobardi pointed out that although Ourway Realty is disqualified from obtaining the license to operate slot machines at Plainridge Racecourse, the location itself is not disqualified.
A reliable source told me this afternoon that there is another management organization planning to take over Plainridge and resubmit the application to the Massachusetts Gaming Commission. That organization is experienced in the gaming industry and would actually be a better candidate to run Plainridge.
The bottom line is simple. It’s not over yet, and smart businessmen are working to find a solution that would meet the requirements of the Gaming Commission and the needs of the people of Plainville. I sincerely hope that something can be worked out.
One of the reasons cited for closing the prison at Guantanamo has been that the terrorists held there should be repatriated to their home countries. In theory that is a great idea–why should we pay the kind of money we are paying to provide soccer fields, special food, and flat screen televisions for terrorists? The jails in their home countries are much more in line with the punishment they deserve. Unfortunately, there are some problems with that idea. These problems were illustrated by some recent news stories.
Reuters has posted two stories recently about jailbreaks in Pakistan and Iraq where the Taliban freed terrorists inmates. (July 30, and July 23)
The July 30 story is about a jail break in Pakistan where the Taliban freed 250 prisoners. That article reported:
The attack in the city of Dera Ismail Khan showed the ability of the al Qaeda-linked Pakistani Taliban to strike at the heart of Pakistan’s heavily guarded prison system and walk away with dozens of senior Taliban fighters and commanders.
The overnight assault on the Central Prison took place despite reports that regional officials had received intelligence days, if not weeks, ago suggesting such an attack was imminent.
Officials blamed a combination of negligence and lack of communication among Pakistan’s many security agencies, but some suggested there may have been a degree of insider help.
The July 23 story deals with an attack on two Iraqi prisons that freed 500 inmates. The July 23 story reports:
The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, formed earlier this year through a merger of al Qaeda’s affiliates in Syria and Iraq, said it had stormed Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib jail and another, some 20 km (12 miles) north of capital, after months of preparation.
Monday’s attacks came exactly a year after the leader of al Qaeda’s Iraqi branch, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, launched a “Breaking the Walls” campaign that made freeing its imprisoned members a top priority, the group said in a statement.
Sunni Islamist militants have in recent months been regaining momentum in their insurgency against Iraq’s Shi’ite-led government, which came to power after the U.S. invasion to oust Saddam Hussein.
The group said it had deployed suicide attackers, rockets, and 12 car bombs, killing 120 Iraqi guards and SWAT forces in the attacks in Taji, north of Baghdad, and Abu Ghraib, the prison made notorious a decade ago by photographs showing abuse of prisoners by U.S. soldiers.
One interesting aspect of the Iraqi prison break is contained in the first sentence of the above quote, “The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, formed earlier this year through a merger of al Qaeda’s affiliates in Syria and Iraq…” This is what has happened in Iraq because we did not negotiate a withdrawal that included enough American forces to prevent a civil war.
But beyond that, let’s look at what happened. Al Qaeda is reconstructing itself because there is a very limited American presence (and thus, influence) in the areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. Al Qaeda needs foot soldiers–the leaders are somewhat expendable. The foot soldiers carry out the suicide bombings and other terrorist attacks. The leaders of Al Qaeda do not do a lot of the work–they simply generate propaganda and supervise the suicide missions. As long as there are young men and women who are willing to undertake these suicide missions, the missions will continue. Al Qaeda has claimed that the attacks on the prisons in Pakistan and Iraq freed 750 prisoners. In those prison attacks, Al Qaeda just gained 750 foot soldiers. No wonder our embassies in the Middle East are shut down.
How much of this story have you seen in the American media?
