Monthly Archives: September 2013

In Case You Missed It When It Happened

Posted on by

One of the stories the media is currently ignoring is the origin of the chemical weapons that have been used in Syria. Some were manufactured in Syria, some were supplied by the Russians, and some were given to Syria by Iraq during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq by America.

The Canada Free Press posted an article today about the weapons Iraq sent to Syria. The story is told in a book by Georges Sada entitled Saddam’s Secrets .

The article in the Canada Free Press reports:

In 2006, Sada laid out the case against Saddam Hussein in a book titled “Saddam’s Secrets,” wherein he writes that the Iraqi leader ordered barrels of chemical weapons loaded onto civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats had been removed and flew them into — you guessed it — Syria.

…Sada claims there were a total of 56 such flights. “Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming,” he said. “They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians.” He also said that the Iraqi official responsible for transferring the WMDs was a cousin of Saddam Hussein named Ali Hussein al-Majid, known as “Chemical Ali,” and that the Syrian official responsible for receiving them was a cousin of Bashar Assad.

Please note that the weapons were moved when Saddam Hussein realized that the Americans were coming. Because we telegraphed our arrival, Saddam had ample time to move his chemical weapons. In Syria there is a different issue. As long as the Russians are in charge of securing the chemical weapons, they will be dealing with Bashar Assad–thus as long as that process is continuing, Assad will remain in power. Unfortunately, the choice in Syria is either Assad or Al Qaeda. Either way, the people of Syria and the Middle East lose. The situation is Syria is such that it will take someone with the wisdom of Solomon to sort it out in a way that is beneficial to both the people of Syria and the world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hopefully This Was Totally An Oversight

Posted on by

As we all know, yesterday was the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. We need to remember that on that day America was attacked by terrorists. The terrorists were Muslims who believed that they were following the tenets of their religion. We need to keep in mind that the tenets of their religion call for the killing of infidels. Their religion also tells them that the only sure way to get to heaven (and their 72 virgins) is to be a martyr. Please keep this in mind as you read the following story.

Boston.com is reporting today that the principal of Concord Carlisle High School in Boston is apologizing for the fact that yesterday, the anniversary of the 911 attacks on America, a Muslim poem was recited over the intercom but the Pledge of Allegiance was not.

The principal explained that the omission of the pledge was due to a miscommunication with the student who was scheduled to read the pledge. The Muslim poem was included in order to promote “cross-cultural understanding.” The poem dealt with a Muslim grandmother washing her feet in the sink at Sears.

The thing about this that really bothers me is the picture that is being painted of a poor little old grandmother (I can totally relate) attempting to wash her feet in Sears. Why doesn’t she go to her home and wash her feet? What are her circumstances that she cannot plan her day to allow foot washing at home? Does the cross-cultural understanding also share the parts of the Koran that call for the killing of infidels? Does it also share the tenets of Islam that call for a war against democracy in order to replace it with Sharia Law? If we are going to encourage cross-cultural understanding, let’s tell the whole story–not just the plight of someone’s sweet, innocent grandmother whose religion totally denies her civil rights. Would we have attempted cross-cultural understanding of the Nazis during World War II?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Never Put Anything In An Email That You Don’t Want To Be Made Public

Posted on by

Today’s Washington Times posted an article about some emails from Lois Lerner that have been released by the House committee investigating the IRS. The emails seem to show that the IRS specifically targeted Tea Party and conservative groups in 2011 in the run-up to the 2012 election.

There are a number of emails that are detailed in the article:

“Tea Party Matter very dangerous,” Ms. Lerner said in the 2011 email, saying that those applications could end up being the “vehicle to go to court” to get more clarity on a 2010 Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance rules.

…“It is what it is,” she said in the email, released Thursday by the Ways and Means Committee. “Although the original story isn’t as pretty as we’d like, once we learned this [sic.] were off track, we have done what we can to change the process, better educate our staff and move the cases. So, we will get dinged, but we took steps before the ‘dinging’ to make things better and we have written procedures.”

That email suggests agency employees knew they had gone overboard in their scrutiny — despite top IRS officials telling Congress that there wasn’t any special scrutiny of conservative groups.

Needless to say, the Democrats on the investigating committee are claiming that there was no targeting of conservative groups. I suspect that there will be more hearings in the near future.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Posted on by

Boston Business Journal posted an article today about one aspect of bringing ObamaCare to Massachusetts.

The article reports:

More than 200,000 in Massachusetts could actually lose health care coverage in the switch to ObamaCare next year. To prevent that, state officials are pulling out all the stops to make sure members of state-subsidized health plans, established under Massachusetts’ own health care reform, don’t lose coverage in the shift.

In order to prevent those state residents from losing their health care coverage, the state is launching a heavy-duty public education campaign, including 230,000 outgoing phone calls urging those currently covered under Massachusetts health care plans to switch to ObamaCare. The new ObamaCare plans are called ConnectorCare plans

The article further reports:

The price tag for all those phone calls – just one part of the outreach effort – is $4.4 million, which will be paid to vendor Dell Services, the services arm of Dell Inc. (Nasdaq: DELL). But there are strings attached. The contract includes penalties for not converting the majority of eligible Commonwealth Care members by Jan. 1, 2014. There will also be a per-member penalty if Dell fails to reach benchmarks by the end of the open enrollment period on March 31, 2014.

It says something about the appeal of ObamaCare that Massachusetts has to pay $4.4 million to get people to enroll in it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Holding Elected Officials Accountable

Posted on by

Yesterday’s Denver Post reported that two Colorado state senators have been recalled after the voters objected to their stand on gun rights. Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron are the first Colorado state lawmakers to be recalled.

The article reports:

“Coloradans … sent a clear message that politicians who blatantly ignore their constituents will be held accountable,” said Dustin Zvonek, state director of Americans for Prosperity. “Perhaps this will serve as a lesson that one-party rule in Denver doesn’t give the majority license to take things to extremes or run roughshod over the values and rights of Coloradans who just happen, for the moment, to be in the minority.”

“Tonight is a victory for the people of the state of Colorado, who have been subject to the overreach of a Democrat agenda on guns, taxes and accountability to the people,” said Tim Knight, Founder of the Basic Freedom Defense Fund and the “father” of the recalls. “Since day one, they said it couldn’t be done. Tonight, this is a victory for the people of Colorado, and we share this victory with them.”

Democrats control the Senate, the House and the governor’s office. Even with Morse and Giron leaving, Democrats retain a one-seat majority in the Senate.

All Americans need to learn from this. Hold your elected officials accountable. If they do not represent you, vote them out of office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Freedom Of Speech Is Not Compatible With Sharia Law

Posted on by

On Friday the Center for Security Policy posted an article about Sushmita Banerjee, an Indian woman who wrote a bestselling memoir about the brutality of Sharia law and her escape from the Taliban. She has been killed by unknown militants in Afghanistan.

In an article in Outlook India.com from May 1998, she related her story. The article reported:

Here I must mention the case of a woman who called in a priest to pray for her son who was seriously ill. Members of the Taliban saw the maulvi going into the house. The woman and the priest were executed in public. They were taken to the square alongside the local police station and shot. The entire village was terrorised by the incident.

…Meanwhile, my brothers-in-law tracked me down and took me back to Afghanistan. They promised to send me back to India. But they did not keep their promise. Instead, they kept me under house arrest and branded me an immoral woman. The Taliban threatened to teach me a lesson. I knew I had to escape.

One night I tunneled my way through the mud walls of the house and fled. Close to Kabul I was arrested. A 15-member group of the Taliban interrogated me. Many of them said that since I had fled my husband’s home I should be executed. However, I was able to convince them that since I was an Indian I had every right to go back to my country.

The interrogation continued through the night. The next morning I was taken to the Indian embassy from where I was given a safe passage. Back in Calcutta I was reunited with my husband. I don’t think he will ever be able to go back to his family.

This is Sharia Law in action.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

ObamaCare Is Coming

Posted on by

The Heritage Foundation produced a video by doctors on the impact of ObamaCare. The video is found at the Heritage Foundation website and on YouTube.

The article at Heritage lists the reasons the foundation believes ObamaCare should be defunded:

1. ObamaCare will cause people to lose their current health insurance and their current doctors.

2. Government boards will determine who will receive treatment–not doctors and patients.

3. Senior citizens will suffer because of the cuts to Medicare.

4. Millions of Americans will be placed on Medicaid–a system that is already broken. Heritage President Jim DeMint said in an op-ed this morning, “Expanding a broken Medicaid program is just giving millions of Americans a cruel and empty promise—an insurance card with limited access to real health care.”

We need to defund ObamaCare and put healthcare back in the hands of patients and doctors. Our current healthcare system is not perfect, but ObamaCare will be a nightmare for all Americans.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Who Is Running The Country?

Posted on by

This article is based on two articles–one from the U.K. Telegraph today and one from Associated Press today. Both articles are related to the bizarre turn of events yesterday when Secretary of State John Kerry unintentionally suggested a solution to the Syrian crisis. Secretary of State Kerry in an offhand remark suggested that if Assad would hand over all his chemical weapons Syria could escape American attack. The suggestion was picked up quickly by Vladimir Putin, and President Obama (and Harry Reid) had an excuse to delay a vote in Congress (which the President was likely to lose) about military intervention in Syria.

The Associated Press article reports:

Syria said Tuesday it has accepted Russia’s proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control for subsequent dismantling.

Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said Tuesday after meeting with Russian parliament speaker that his government quickly “agreed to the Russian initiative.”

Al-Moallem added that Syria did so to “uproot U.S. aggression.”

So what is going on here? The current government of Syria is an ally of Russia. Russia just bought them some time. Even a small strike by the United States could turn the tide in favor of the rebels, and John Kerry’s offhand remark gave Russia a chance to avoid that strike.

Syria has agreed to the arrangement. Has anyone asked if the facilities to make chemical weapons will be inspected and dismantled?

I don’t support a military strike on Syria–I am not convinced there is anything to gain be getting involved in a civil war where there don’t seem to be any good guys. I am sorry that the President misspoke about a red line, but that is not worth killing anyone. I am not sure that this new idea is a solution–I think it is more of a delay tactic, but I think it is better than sending American weapons or troops.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Add To The Mix

Posted on by

I have been doing an awful lot of posts about Syria lately, but that is the issue of the day. There will be more to come today, but here is something else to add to the mix.

Gates of Vienna posted a video (and transcript) of an interview of one of two former hostages of the Syrian rebel forces. The video below can also be found on YouTube:

The transcript below can be found at the Gates of Vienna website:

00:01   Before talking about your kidnapping and release, you say you have this information
00:04 that could have the effect of a bombshell. You claim you have proof
00:08 it is the rebels themselves and not Bashar Al Assad’s regime that used
00:12 chemical weapons last August 21st, yes?
00:16 I didn’t exactly say this. For the moment, as a matter of ethics,
00:21 Dominico and I are determined not to divulge the information, it’s a bit logical.
00:25 In Italy, Dominico must first go through the judiciary
00:29 before releasing what he have witnessed on site.
00:33 So, when La Stampa thinks the moment is right
00:38 to reveal this information, I will also do so with
00:42 the media of my choice here in Belgium.
00:46 This said, it is a moral duty for Domenico and I to divulge this.
00:50 It is not the government of Bashar Al Assad that
00:55 used the Sarin or whatever other poison gas in the suburb town of Ghouta
01:04 This, we are certain of because of certain conversations we overhead
01:08 and, even though it is hard for me to say this,
01:12 since I have been a fierce supporter of the Free Syrian Army since May 2012
01:16 in its true quest for democracy.
01:20 Do you realize Pierre Peccinin that you are sparking controversy by going against the narrative
01:25 of many countries such as the U.S. and France who have
01:30 committed to strikes against the Damascus regime?
01:34 Yes, it is definitely an issue that has given us problems as soon as we were confronted with this reality.
01:40 It was August 30th, we were in Bab al Ouad in the barracks, the headquarters, of the Free Army that
01:49 we shared with the Al-Farook movement
01:51 and for us, when we heard what we were hearing,
01:55 anger overtook us because we had received information before to the effect
01:59 the U.S. were planning to punish the regime, and intervene.
02:07 We were going crazy because here we were, unable to get out and we had
02:10 this information and it was impossible for us to relay it.

Wow.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Experienced View On Syria

Posted on by

Ryan Crocker is currently the first Kissinger Senior Fellow at Yale University 2012-2013. He also holds an appointment as the James Schlesinger Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of Virginia. In August 2013 he will return to his position as Dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. He retired from the Foreign Service in April 2009 after a career of over 37 years but was recalled to active duty by President Obama to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan. He has served as U.S. Ambassador six times: Afghanistan (2011-2012), Iraq (2007-2009), Pakistan (2004-2007), Syria (1998-2001), Kuwait (1994-1997), and Lebanon (1990-1993). He posted at article in July at YaleGlobal Online stating his views on military intervention in Syria.

Please follow the link to read the entire article–it details the history of the reason and makes the case for no American military involvement at this time.

The article concludes:

I was in Lebanon recently, where the outgoing prime minister gloomily predicted a renewed civil war of which there are already signs with clashes between Sunnis and Alawites in the northern city of Tripoli, in the northeast and attacks on Hezbollah-controlled areas in Beirut. If the violence spreads, the Palestinians will join forces with the Lebanese Sunnis against the Shia, and that in turn will radicalize Palestinians in Jordan’s already fragile monarchy. Both countries need our security and economic support, for the refugee influx and their security forces.

This will be a long war. There is little the United States can do to positively influence events in Syria. Our focus must be on preventing further spillover beyond its borders. There may come a point where exhaustion on both sides makes a political solution possible. We are nowhere near that point. And my fear is that at the end of the day, the Assad regime prevails. We must be ready for that too.

We need to listen to the voice of experience.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Working Hard To Fail

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal features and article by Norman Podhoretz entitled, “Obama’s Successful Foreign Failure.” In this article Mr. Podhoretz puts forth the theory that President Obama is following an agenda designed to reduce the influence of America around the world.

The article states:

But foreign policy was another matter. As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country’s power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic “isolationist” label abroad.

This he did by camouflaging his retreats from the responsibilities bred by foreign entanglements as a new form of “engagement.” At the same time, he relied on the war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment (which, to be sure, dared not speak its name) on the left and right to get away with drastic cuts in the defense budget, with exiting entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with “leading from behind” or using drones instead of troops whenever he was politically forced into military action.

How does this relate to the current question of whether or not we should intervene in Syria? I question whether President Obama is depending on Congress to vote ‘no’ on military intervention on Syria and let him off the hook for his reckless statement. The fact that Susan Rice is being sent out to make the case for military intervention in Syria causes me to wonder if he really wants to make the case.

The Weekly Standard posted an article today stating:

“The White House has had quite enough of the controversy over ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, the misleading talking points she used in TV interviews about the jihadist attacks in Benghazi, and the Obama administration’s contradictory narrative about those attacks,” Steve Hayes reported in December. 

But today, Rice will be called upon again to make a public case for the White House — this time, she’ll be talking about Syria. Except now Rice is the national security adviser, a promotion she received in the last year.

There are two options here for President Obama. First of all, if Congress votes ‘no,’ he can ignore the wishes of Congress, attack anyway, and cause a Constitutional crisis. That will deflect from the problems with ObamaCare, the debt ceiling, unemployment, etc. Politically that could work toward his advantage since Congress is not likely to call him on the Constitutional question. Secondly, if Congress votes ‘no,’ he could not attack and blame the Republicans in Congress for refusing to support him. He might gain a few political points from that approach also. I am not mentioning an option where Congress votes ‘yes’ because I can’t imagine that happening. There is not a lot of support in Congress for an attack on Syria. Oddly enough, I suspect there is more support from Republicans on an attack than from Democrats. Blaming the Republicans for a ‘no’ vote would only work if the news media played along.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Permit Denied

Posted on by

Today The Examiner is reporting that the “2 Million Bikers” non-stop ride through Washington, D.C., has been denied a permit. The non-stop ride was to take place on September 11, the same day a ‘Million Muslim March’ is scheduled.

The article reports:

The event organizers of this “2 Million Bikers Ride to DC” have quickly changed to plan B which will be an all-day event instead of just riding straight through the area. Its purpose has not changed. The central message is a show of strength in numbers to honor the people that lost their lives on that fateful day and to pay their respects to the many members of our armed forces that have lost their lives since. The ride is still likely to be traveling by all the veterans’ memorials in the area. Riders will now be stopping for traffic signals as a result of the no-stop permit being denied.

I can understand the denial of the no-stop permit, but the right to assemble is part of the U.S. Constitution. Best wishes to the bikers who are remembering this day as only they can.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Don’t Assume That Scientists Always Get Things Right

Posted on by

The U.K. Daily Mail posted a story yesterday with two amazing pictures:

global cooling

As much as I love the idea of global warming, the pictures seem to indicate that it is just not happening. I would like to point out that in the past we have had cycles of both global warming and global cooling. These cycles occurred long before the industrial revolution and were not related to anyone’s carbon footprint.

The article reports:

Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.

The disclosure comes 11 months after The Mail on Sunday triggered intense political and scientific debate by revealing that global warming has ‘paused’ since the beginning of 1997 – an event that the computer models used by climate experts failed to predict.

In March, this newspaper further revealed that temperatures are about to drop below the level that the models forecast with ‘90 per cent certainty’.

The pause – which has now been accepted as real by every major climate research centre – is important, because the models’ predictions of ever-increasing global temperatures have made many of the world’s economies divert billions of pounds into ‘green’ measures to counter  climate change.

Those predictions now appear gravely flawed.

The article concludes:

‘The IPCC (UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims its models show a pause of 15 years can be expected. But that means that after only a very few years more, they will have to admit they are wrong.’

 Others are more cautious. Dr Ed Hawkins, of Reading University, drew the graph published by The Mail on Sunday in March showing how far world temperatures have diverged from computer predictions. He admitted the cycles may have caused some of the recorded warming, but insisted that natural variability alone could not explain all of the temperature rise over the past 150 years.

Nonetheless, the belief that summer Arctic ice is about to disappear remains an IPCC tenet, frequently flung in the face of critics who point to the pause.

Yet there is mounting evidence that Arctic ice levels are cyclical. Data uncovered by climate historians show that there was a massive melt in the 1920s and 1930s, followed by intense re-freezes that ended only in 1979 – the year the IPCC says that shrinking began.

Professor Curry said the ice’s behaviour over the next five years would be crucial, both for understanding the climate and for future policy. ‘Arctic sea ice is the indicator to watch,’ she said.

The bottom line here is that we simply don’t understand the earth’s climate cycles. We know they exist, but we don’t know how they work or if human activity impacts them. I am in favor of clean water and clean air, but I am not in favor of crippling economic growth for faulty science. We need to learn balance, and we need to realize that much of the panic we have heard regarding global warming has to do with the desire on the part of some world leaders to transfer wealth from successful free countries into the hands of third-world tyrants. The route to economic success for any third-world country has to include freedom for its people. If there is no incentive, there will be no economic growth.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Having A Valid Motive Does Not Ensure A Positive Outcome

Posted on by

On Thursday the Washington Post posted an article by Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. The article was entitled, “A war the Pentagon doesn’t want.” General Scales‘ rank and the title of the article should cause all of us to read it carefully and consider what he has to say.

The General gives his impression of our professional military’s reaction to the current debate on whether or not to take military action in Syria. He points out some basic trends:

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

…Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.

They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.”

If the Obama Administration is truly concerned about the slaughter of innocents in the Middle East, why have they not come to the aid of the Coptic Christians in Egypt? The Coptic Christians have been under attack since the fall of Mubarak–their churches have been burned, their daughters kidnapped, and their pastors killed. America has remained silent.

What has happened in Syria is horrible, but it is folly to get involved in anyone’s civil war. We see the results of toppling a ruthless dictator as we watch the carnage in Egypt. Unless we are willing to make a long term, expensive commitment to establish a better government in Syria, we need to stay out of their civil war. Even if we were willing to pay the price to establish a democracy, it is very possible that other countries in the area would do everything in their power to undermine that effort. Bombing Syria will accomplish nothing, and it will not do anything to deter Iran’s nuclear program (as President Obama recently claimed).

The article in the Washington Post reminds us:

Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.

One of the problems with the President’s desire to go to war in Syria is the way that the Democrat party handled the war in Iraq. Democrats in Congress voted to approve the war, then did everything they could to use the war as a political issue against George Bush. The rules of engagement were set up in such a way that our military was not allowed to fight the war to win. The American people and the military don’t want to see our men and women put in harm’s way and not allowed to defend themselves. Our servicemen and servicewomen volunteered to defend America, they did not sign up to cover for an unfortunate slip of the tongue by America’s President.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Freedom Of Religion Is Not A Part Of The Islamic Philosophy

Posted on by

Yesterday ABC News posted a story about recent events in Dalga, Egypt. The article explains that the town was taken over by the supporters of former Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi on July 3.

The article reports:

With the army and police already fighting a burgeoning militant insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula, there are growing signs that a second insurgency could erupt in the south — particularly in Minya and Assiut provinces, both Islamist strongholds and home to Egypt’s two largest Christian communities.

The takeover of Dalga has been disastrous for the Christian community in the town, located 270 kilometers (160 miles) south of Cairo in Minya, on the edge of the Nile Valley near the cliffs that mark the start of the desert.

In the initial burst of violence, the town’s only Catholic church was ransacked and set ablaze, like the Monastery of the Virgin Mary and St. Abraam. The Anglican church was looted.

Since the Morsi supporters took over the town, Christian homes have been looted and burned. Some homes have been spared because the Christians living in them have paid their Muslim neighbors to protect them.

This is an example of the government that can follow the removal of a Middle Eastern dictator. Unless we are prepared to take over a country until a moderate government can be established, we should not intervene in a civil war in the Middle East.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Internal Revenue Service As A Political Force

Posted on by

We haven’t heard much lately about the Internal Revenue Service‘s (IRS) targeting of conservative groups, but Investor’s Business Daily posted an editorial yesterday illustrating another aspect of IRS involvement in the 2012 election.

The article explains:

At the same time the IRS harassed Republican nonprofit groups during the 2012 political campaign, it selectively advised black churches and other Democrat nonprofits on how far they can go in campaigning for President Obama and other Democrats.

…U.S. tax code prohibits churches and other nonprofits from “participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office.”

The ban includes donations, endorsements, fundraising or any other activity “that may be beneficial or detrimental to any particular candidate.” In the past, black churches have been known to pass out voting guides to members in violation of IRS rules.

Washington constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley at the time blogged that the special campaign training session offered these Obama supporters — with the direct participation of the IRS chief and attorney general — was a “raw” display of political favoritism.

“If (former GOP Attorney General) Alberto Gonzalez went to Congress to brief evangelical religious leaders on campaigning in the presidential election, the hue and cry would be deafening,” Turley said.

Non-black clergy were not afforded the same legal training in campaigning tactics by the Obama administration.

First of all, I have very mixed emotions about the whole idea of churches not being allowed to be politically involved. Theoretically, the church is the moral backbone of America and should be allowed to speak out on political or moral issues that impact America. The law that bars political speech in the church was enacted by Lyndon Johnson in response to a political opponent who was getting support in local churches–it has nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, if you study American history, you find that the church has often spoken out about political and moral issues in the past.

The uneven enforcement of the law is one of the major aspects of the Eric Holder Justice Department and the politicized IRS. It is time to remove these people from Washington and return America to a place where all men are equal under the law.

Enhanced by Zemanta

One Theory On Why President Obama Consulted Congress About Syria

Posted on by

President Obama does not have a history of working closely with Congress. That is somewhat odd, since he served in Congress before becoming President, but that is the situation. President Obama did not consult Congress before intervening in Libya, and has not seemed particularly interested in consulting Congress on domestic budget issues. So why did he decide he needed to consult Congress on military intervention in Syria? I didn’t say he wasn’t supposed to, I just wondered why he decided to.

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today with an interesting theory. Two related stories give us clues.

Yesterday the Daily Caller reported:

Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Quds Forces, Wednesday told the Assembly of Experts — the body that chooses the supreme leader — that “[w]e will support Syria to the end.”

And in an unprecedented statement, a former Iranian official has warned of mass abductions and brutal killings of American citizens around the world and the rape and killing of one of Obama’s daughters should the United States attack Syria.

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal Reported:

The U.S. has intercepted an order from Iran to militants in Iraq to attack the U.S. Embassy and other American interests in Baghdad in the event of a strike on Syria, officials said, amid an expanding array of reprisal threats across the region.

Obviously there is no way to know if Iran can make good on these threats, but it is, nevertheless, chilling.

John Hinderaker at Power Line concludes:

If sending a few cruise missiles into Syria was a symbolic act, without serious consequences, like blowing up an aspirin factory in Sudan, then Obama was happy to go it alone. But if there was a possibility of major blowback, not just from an isolated terrorist or two but coordinated by Tehran, the situation would have seemed entirely different. In the event of a significant retaliatory response, Obama would not want to be out on a limb by himself on Syria. Rather, he would want it to be clear that the Syrian intervention was a decision for which the entire U.S. government was responsible, including some Republicans (like, say, John McCain). This conclusion is even stronger, given the risk that a significant retaliation traceable to Iran would escalate tensions with that nation and could lead to a broader and far more substantial conflict. In this event, Obama most certainly would not want to be seen to have triggered the conflagration by himself.

…What is still an open question, in my mind, is whether Obama really wants Congress to say Yes. Certainly there is reason to believe that he does: his minions lobbied for a favorable vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he will give a speech on Tuesday that apparently will try to convince voters to support an attack. But he has done almost nothing to lobby House members, and it seems a foregone conclusion that the House will vote No. What will Obama do then? If he cancels the attack, many will conclude that going to Congress was Obama’s way of saying, Let’s call the whole thing off.

I hate to think that President Obama went to Congress to shield himself from the responsibility of an attack on Syria, but based on his past history, that is a strong possibility. I hope we don’t bomb Syria–I am not sure who we would be actually helping if we did–I am not convinced that the rebel forces are our friends.

Prepare for war, but pray for peace.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Pictures From The Latest Jobs Report

Posted on by

On August 29, Breitbart.com posted a story about the current labor force participation rate. The chart below tells the story:

Although the unemployment numbers look good, they don’t tell the whole story:

The labor force participation rate is the lowest it has been in 34 years.

The article at Breitbart contains this rather chilling quote:

“Following the Great Recession, we’ve entered into the Great Shift,” says Express Employment Professionals CEO Bob Funk, who previously served as chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank. “This is a period defined by the Boomer retirement, Millennial frustration, and growing reliance on government programs. All indicators suggest this shift is not sustainable.” (emphasis mine)

The economic policies of the Obama Administration have not worked. If President Obama will not reverse them, we need to elect people who will. Our future depends on it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Democracy In Action

Posted on by

Tonight I attended the “Post-Negotiation” Forum with the Town of Plainville presented by the Cummings Team. This forum was the final phase of the meetings held before the September 10th election where Plainville residents get to vote on whether or not to allow slot machines to be installed into Plainridge Raceway.  What was supposed to be a rather orderly process was complicated recently when the Massachusetts Gaming Commission declared  OurWay Realty (the former owners of Plainridge Racecourse) unfit to manage the proposed slot machines due to some prior business practices. To review some recent history, the Town of Plainville Board of Selectmen decided to proceed with the election, stating that the owners were disqualified–not the site or the town. The original purpose of the meeting was to explain to the voters the details of the Host Agreement Plainridge had signed with the Town. That was done very thoroughly, but obviously those attending the meeting were very interested in learning about the company that had bought Plainridge. All of the information about the Host Agreement between Plainridge and Plainville can be found on the Town of Plainville website. The Assignment and Assumption of Host Community Agreement can also be found on Plainville’s website. The agreement is between Ourway Realty, LLC, and Springfield Gaming and Redevelopment ,LLC (a company formed by Penn National Gaming). The agreement did not change–it was simply transferred to the new owners.

This week it was announced that Penn National Gaming has taken over Plainridge Racecourse and will apply for the license for the slot machines. Penn National Gaming representatives gave a short presentation about their company and explained that very few changes would be made to the original plans for the Racino. They gave a brief history of the company, which is publicly traded on NASDAQ. Chris McErlean, Vice-President, Racing, explained that the company’s forte is racing/gaming facilities. Eric Schippers, Senior Vice-President, Public Relations, explained that the goal of Penn National Gaming in getting involved in Plainridge was to save the racetrack. He explained that Penn National Gaming has a decentralized management philosophy and believes in local managers involved in the communities where their facilities are located.

The meeting was very positive, and I believe that Penn National Gaming would be a very suitable organization to run Plainridge Raceway. The representatives from Penn National Gaming did remind us that the vote in Plainville was only a part of the process. Even if the voters approve the slot machines, the Massachusetts Gaming Commission will decide whether or not to choose the site.

I would like to applaud the Plainville Board of Selectmen for allowing the vote to go forward on September 10 even though it looked as if there might not be anyone to takeover the racetrack. I would also like to applaud the representatives of Penn National Gaming for a very thorough and concise presentation explaining who they are and what their plans are for the future of Plainridge Raceway. Because of the foresight of the Board of Selectmen and the willingness of Penn National Gaming to get involved midway through the process, Plainville voters will have a chance to express their opinion.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something That Makes Me Absolutely Furious

Posted on by

In the midst of all the war talk about Syria, you might have missed this story. CNS News reported Tuesday that President Obama has decided to decrease the amount of money our military would receive in pay raises this year.

The article reports:

Obama said he has decided to “exercise my authority under section 1009(e) of title 37, United States Code, to set the 2014 monthly basic pay increase at 1.0 percent” for members of the military.

“This decision is consistent with my fiscal year 2014 Budget and will not materially affect the Federal Government‘s ability to attract and retain well-qualified members for the uniformed services,” Obama wrote.

Federal law says military pay raises must be based on the Employment Cost Index, which is a quarterly measure of changes in labor costs compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Congress came up with the formula to tie annual military raises to private sector pay growth.

And based on that statutory formula, military personnel should be getting a 1.8 percent pay raise beginning in January 2014.

However, the law also says if the president considers the pay adjustment inappropriate — because of national emergency or serious economic conditions — he may inform Congress of an alternative pay adjustment, along with his reasons for such a change.

This makes me absolutely furious. How about cutting the raises to Congress and the Executive Branch instead? On August 2, I reported that the government would be subsidizing healthcare for Congress and Congressional staffers to protect them from the cost increases of ObamaCare (rightwinggranny.com), why not use that money to fund raises for our military?
Enhanced by Zemanta

One of the Problems with Syria

Posted on by

Michael Rubin was on the Bill Bennett show this morning. During his comments he restated something he had written in an AEI article on August 28.

The article states:

Remember: While the Aug. 21 attack on East Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus, was the most severe chemical weapons strike, the UN has accused both sides of utilizing chemical agents.

I haven’t heard that reported in a lot of places.

Meanwhile, the New York Times posted an article today detailing some of the brutality of the Syrian Rebels. There are the rebels that an American intervention would help. A recent video smuggled out of Syria shows rebel forces brutally executing prisoners.

The New York Times article details some of the problems with supporting the rebels:

Much of the concern among American officials has focused on two groups that acknowledge ties to Al Qaeda. These groups — the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — have attracted foreign jihadis, used terrorist tactics and vowed to create a society in Syria ruled by their severe interpretation of Islamic law.

They have established a firm presence in parts of Aleppo and Idlib Provinces and in the northern provincial capital of Raqqa and in Deir al-Zour, to the east on the Iraqi border.

While the jihadis claim to be superior fighters, and have collaborated with secular Syrian rebels, some analysts and diplomats also note that they can appear less focused on toppling President Bashar al-Assad. Instead, they said, they focus more on establishing a zone of influence spanning Iraq’s Anbar Province and the desert eastern areas of Syria, and eventually establishing an Islamic territory under their administration.

I really think we need to consider what we would be supporting if we were to get involved in Syria’s civil war. I am still not convinced that there are any good guys in this fight. My heart breaks for the civilian casualties, but I am not sure helping the rebels will improve things for the people of Syria. It might be much more constructive simply to help the refugees as they find their way to other countries.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Twists And Turns Of Bringing Slot Machines To Plainville

Posted on by

On September 10, voters in Plainville, Massachusetts, will go to the polls and vote to determine whether or not to bring approximately 1200 slot machines into Plainridge Raceway. As you drive around Plainville, you see a lot of lawn signs. The majority of the ones I have seen support the slot machines, but I haven’t driven through all parts of the town. On Thursday there will be an information meeting for the voters held at the Wood School in Plainville, and on Sunday there will be a meeting held by the opponents of the slot machines at the Senior Center in Plainville. I plan to attend both meetings.

The Sun Chronicle featured two stories about the slot machines on its website today. The first story, titled “Gaming commission wants to hear from Plainville residents on transfer of slots agreement,” states that the Gaming Commission is holding off a decision on whether or not to approve the sale of Plainridge to Penn National Gaming until it has a chance to hear from the residents of the town. I assume that means that members of the Gaming Commission will be present at Thursday’s meeting.

The second story in the Sun Chronicle is titled, “Penn National has track record on race tracks, gambling venues.” That story deals with the reputation and past performance of the Penn National Gaming company.

That article reports:

This much is known: Penn National is one of the largest gambling concerns in the country. It owns 28 facilities that include casinos, race tracks with slot machines and stand-alone race tracks.

Michael Perpall, president of the Harness Horsemen’s Association of New England, said Penn National has a good reputation among horsemen and he is optimistic it would do a good job at Plainridge.

Clyde Barrows, who studies gambling at University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, also said the firm is a well-respected operator in the gaming industry.

“Penn is a publicly-traded company on NASDAQ with a recent share price above $53 and 2012 net income of $211.9 million,” he said.

The opposition group in Plainville is lead by Mary-Ann Greanier. Generally speaking, she has objected to everything said and done by the town and by Plainridge in this process. Her current complaint is that voters do not have enough information on Penn National. It seems to me that their reputation with both horsemen and the gambling industry is an indication that they are reputable people we can do business with. It would be nice if Ms.Greanier would simply admit that she doesn’t want the track and that she will oppose it on any grounds possible.

Enhanced by Zemanta