Is This Even Legal?

The National Review posted a story today about the nuclear deal with Iran. In the story, Fred Fleitz, the author, reports on two aspects of the deal with Iran that were not going to be made public (or available to Congress or other nations).

The article reports:

Senator Tom Cotton (R., Ark.) and Congressmen Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) issued a press release yesterday on a startling discovery they made during a July 17 meeting with International Atomic Energy Agency officials in Vienna: There are two secret side deals to the nuclear agreement with Iran that will not be shared with other nations, with Congress, or with the U.S. public. One of these side deals concerns inspection of the Parchin military base, where Iran reportedly has conducted explosive testing related to nuclear-warhead development. The Iranian government has refused to allow the IAEA to visit this site. Over the last several years, Iran has taken steps to clean up evidence of weapons-related activity at Parchin. 

The other side deal relates to the possible military dimensions (PMDs) of Iran’s nuclear program. Evidently the PMD issue is not resolved. In 2013, Iran agreed to answer International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) questions about work in weapons-related areas, but has not actually answered the questions.

This is a copy of part of the press release issued by Senator Cotton and Congressman Pompeo:

According to the IAEA, the Iran agreement negotiators, including the Obama administration, agreed that the IAEA and Iran would forge separate arrangements to govern the inspection of the Parchin military complex — one of the most secretive military facilities in Iran — and how Iran would satisfy the IAEA’s outstanding questions regarding past weaponization work. Both arrangements will not be vetted by any organization other than Iran and the IAEA, and will not be released even to the nations that negotiated the JCPOA [Iran nuclear agreement]. This means that the secret arrangements have not been released for public scrutiny and have not been submitted to Congress as part of its legislatively mandated review of the Iran deal. 

Do we need any more reasons to reject this treaty?

 

 

One Way To Keep Medical Costs Down

The News & Observer, a newspaper located in Raleigh, North Carolina, posted an editorial yesterday about one rather obvious way to lower medical costs in North Carolina. It is an easy solution–except for the fact that there are corporate interests who do not like this solution.

The editorial explains:

One important element of the budget recently passed by the N.C. Senate would lower health care costs by reforming North Carolina’s Certificate of Need law and increasing the number of same-day surgery centers across the state.

Currently, North Carolina has one of the most restrictive CON laws in the nation. The Senate proposal would save patients about 40 percent in costs when centers are allowed to be built.

Certificate of Need laws started in the 1970s with the goal of keeping hospitals from overbuilding facilities and acquiring unnecessary hospital equipment – both actions thought to increase costs for consumers. Unfortunately, these CON laws ended up essentially increasing costs because competition was eliminated. In 1987, the Reagan administration recognized that CON laws were a bad idea and spoke out against the federal mandate for CON. States began to repeal CON restrictions.

Today, 71 percent of all surgeries are outpatient or same-day surgery. Of those surgeries, too many – 72 percent – are performed at the highest-cost hospital system facilities.

One very basic example of an outpatient clinic that saves time and money and improves the quality of medical care is in the area of cataract surgery. As our population ages, many Americans face cataract surgery. With today’s medical practices, this is generally very simple and uncomplicated surgery. It is very easily done at an off-site medical facility. In Massachusetts, Surgisite Boston is a facility used by 70 ophthalmologists from throughout the region. The center aims to best serve both patients and physicians by acting quickly to adopt new technologies and create a comfortable, accessible environment for treatment. Having the center outside of the hospital cuts the costs for patients, and because of the specialized nature of the center, allows for the newest technologies. It also allows the surgeons to share the cost of the latest equipment and to offset that cost by having the equipment used every day.

The editorial explains other aspects of the debate:

The Federal Trade Commission staff supports CON reform in North Carolina that allows the freedom to build independent, nonhospital surgery centers that lower costs. The FTC states that “CON laws raise considerable competitive concerns and generally do not appear to achieve their alleged benefits for health care consumers” and that “CON laws can restrict entry and expansion, limit consumer choice, and stifle innovation.”

Cost analysis by Blue Cross Blue Shield NC shows patients across the state are paying way too much – sometimes more than double what others are paying – for many surgical procedures:

▪ An ACL repair by arthroscopic surgery in the Charlotte area cost $9,710 at a nonhospital ambulatory surgery center in Concord while the same procedure cost $29,565 at a hospital-run outpatient facility in Charlotte.

So what isn’t the introduction of surgical centers in North Carolina an easy solution to rising health care costs? Unfortunately hospitals like having a monopoly on surgical procedures. Hospitals are telling their employees that if surgical centers are built, the employees will lose their jobs. This is not true, but unless an employee actually takes the time to investigate what surgical centers will do, they will oppose the centers in order to keep their jobs. During a recent visit to Raleigh, one of our state legislators showed me the pile of mail he had received opposing changes to the “CON” law. Oddly enough, much of the mail opposing the changes came in business envelopes with hospital return addresses printed on them. There were two significant piles of mail from people who worked for hospitals who feared losing their jobs.

Changing the “CON” law should be an obvious thing to do. However, when hospitals have a monopoly on surgical procedures both simple and complex, they are reluctant to give up that monopoly. Unless the healthcare consumer becomes more aware of why healthcare costs are rising, things like the “CON” laws will continue to stifle competition in medicine. It is up to the consumer to help fight the monopoly that prevents North Carolina from having the surgical centers it needs.

Good News–If He’s Right

According to an article posted today in the Washington Free Beacon, former Senator Joe Lieberman has stated that he believes that there is enough Democrat opposition to the nuclear treaty with Iran to override a presidential veto if the Senate does not approve the treaty and the President vetoes their disapproval. (Just for the record, that is not the way the U.S. Constitution is supposed to work, but it seems as if no one is paying attention to the U.S. Constitution at this point).

The article reports:

Lieberman said he knew members of Congress would take this vote seriously and consider its ramifications. The deal, which relieves sanctions and does not provide “anytime, anywhere” inspections of suspected nuclear activity, paves the way for the rogue regime to become a nuclear power and continue to fund terrorism worldwide.

“They know that they voted for sanctions … Strong bipartisan majorities for a single reason—that economic sanctions on Iran would only come off if Iran’s nuclear weapons program ended,” Lieberman said. “This agreement does the opposite. Take the sanctions off, and after a period of years, they get to be a nuclear power.”

Lieberman said the U.S. “conceded and conceded and conceded” to the Iranians in the agreement.

“I can’t think of a vote that I cast, apart from the ones deploying American troops into combat, that was as important as this agreement is to the future security of the United States,” Lieberman said.

Former Senator Lieberman is a good example of a principled Democrat. Although I disagree with him on many issues, he seemed to be a man of integrity who tried to do the right thing for America. It is a shame that the Democrats did not support him because he voted his conscience while he was in the Senate rather than follow the party line. I wish the Democrats had more men like him.

This Is The Story, What Are WE Going To Do About It?

There are two videos now exposing Planned Parenthood as guilty of selling aborted baby body parts. There is a lot of noise about the discovery (although I suspect this has been known in some circles for quite some time). What are we going to do about it? Does anyone in Congress at least have the intestinal fortitude to stop funding Planned Parenthood? That might be a first step. Do any of the people who scream about using animals in laboratories want to come forward and demand that the use of aborted baby body parts in laboratories should stop? Has Frankenstein become a reality?

On Sunday, The Washington Times posted an article about the selling of baby body parts by Planned Parenthood. The article explains that there is a loophole in the law that allows this to happen. Abby Johnson is a former clinic director for a Planned Parenthood facility in East Texas.

The article reports:

Based on her experience, Ms. Johnson says she saw nothing in the video to indicate that Planned Parenthood is breaking the law. At the same time, she said the video exposes a loophole that gives clinics and processing companies enormous latitude in setting reimbursement charges for fetal hearts, lungs and other organs.

“The law currently states that there can be moneys exchanged as long as they fit under certain categories like preservation, collection, storage, transport, etc.,” Ms. Johnson said. “And the law says there is not a maximum amount that can be charged or a minimum amount but that costs cannot be prohibitive. And that’s very subjective.”

(Corrected paragraph:) Ms. Johnson does not support the use of fetal-tissue for research.

“They [clinics] could say, ‘Well, it’s more difficult for me to harvest a brain than it is for me to harvest a kidney, so that collection fee is going to be $1,000 for a brain, whereas it’s only going to be $400 for a kidney,'” Ms. Johnson said. “And the problem is that it’s so subjective, the amount of money that can be charged. That’s really where we need reform.”

Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at NYU Langone Medical Center‘s Department of Population Health, also raised the issue of high transfer costs, telling Reuters that only a few companies collect the fetal tissue and that “they charge a lot for it.”

“I’m not sure people who donate it realize that,” Mr. Caplan added.

Again, what are we going to do about this? Are you willing to call your Congressman and ask that Congress stop funding Planned Parenthood? Are you willing to ask that the loophole in the law be changed so that aborted baby parts are not sold for profit? Are you as upset by this as you were by the killing of baby seals or the use of animals for cosmetic research? What kind of a society have we become?

Where Do We Go From Here?

The nuclear deal with Iran is awful. Just as the nuclear deal with North Korea paved the way for North Korea to get nuclear weapons, the nuclear deal with Iran will pave the way for Iran to get nuclear weapons. Because the agreement will go to the United Nations (where it will pass) before it goes to the United States Senate, there will be immense pressure on Senators to agree to the deal. That’s where we were yesterday, but this is today. The deal is getting even worse.

Breitbart.com, is reporting today that now that the deal is on its way to approval., Iran would like to rewrite it. This would be comical if it were not a serious matter.

The article reports:

On Saturday, the Fars News Agency reported that the Majlis threatened to reject the agreement’s provision on ballistic missiles, which call for an international embargo on missile technology to be extended for eight years–a significant, last-minute concession by the U.S.

Iran wants unrestricted ballsitic missile development and access to conventional arms dealers abroad.

“The parliament will reject any limitations on the country’s access to conventional weapons, specially ballistic missiles,” said Tehran MP Seyed Mehdi Hashemi.

In addition, the nuclear deal says that the Majlis will ratify the Additional Protocol (AP) to the Non-Proliferation Treaty–but it does not say when.

The AP is the key to long-term monitoring of Iranian nuclear research and development by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Without approval of the AP, Iran may hide key information about its nuclear activity, and may accelerate advanced centrifuge research immediately when the nuclear deal expires, among other hazards. (Even then, its commitments under the AP will be somewhat voluntary.)

Meanwhile, the economic sanctions will be lifted on Iran so that they can resume supporting terrorism around the world. We have been snookered.

More Bullying By The Obama Administration

The Obama Administration has shown itself to be thin-skinned in dealing with anyone who does not agree with them. They have also shown a willingness to shut down the free speech of any opposition. It is not surprising that they are also making things very difficult for groups who do not support abortion to get government grants to fight human trafficking.

Fox News reported today:

Religious groups that refuse abortion counseling no longer can get grants to help human trafficking victims unless they ensure the counseling is provided by a third party, under new guidelines by the Department of Health and Human Services.

In guidance quietly posted online in June, the agency said groups competing for grants must offer “the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care,” which includes abortion counseling and referrals. If groups don’t offer the services, they must propose an alternative approach to remain competitive for a grant.

That has at least one anti-abortion advocate contending the new policy may violate the federal Weldon Amendment, a law saying federal money can’t be awarded if it’s being used to discriminate against healthcare entities that won’t provide or refer women for abortions.

Under President Obama, the Department of Health and Human Services has become an advocate for abortion–not an advocate for improving the health of Americans. It is time for Americans to rethink what abortion has given us–do you support the selling of baby body parts? According to Planned Parenthood, they are doing nothing wrong when they sell baby body parts. Is this what you signed on for when you said you were ‘pro choice?’

Let’s See How Serious Congress Is About Protecting Americans

On Wednesday Breitbart.com posted an article about an amendment Representative Kevin Yoder introduced to the 2016 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill. The bill has been passed in the House Appropriations Committee. Let’s see how far it goes after that.

The article reports:

The revision serves to withhold funding from cities with sanctuary policies and inhibit enforcement of immigration law.

Thousands of Americans fall victim to crimes by illegal aliens each year that could be prevented, such as the July 1 death of Kate Steinle in San Francisco. Her murder may have been prevented had the “sanctuary city” not released a five-time deported, seven-time convicted felon back out onto American streets.

Steinle’s killer made a jailhouse confession in which he indicated that he chose San Francisco for its lax immigration enforcement.

…The House Appropriations Committee is also pushing to keep U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from releasing criminal illegal aliens from custody before they are deported, the Associated Press reported.

Some 1,400 criminal illegal aliens released under the Obama administration in the 2014 fiscal year committed additional crimes, Breitbart News reported Tuesday.

Satellite Data Versus Manipulated Data

On Friday The Daily Caller posted a story about global warming. It seems that the satellite temperature data tells a different story than the one we are hearing.

The article reports:

Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.

The article also includes the graph below:

SatelliteBasedTemperatureThe thing to consider here is how government grant money works. If you declare a crisis, it is easier to get a federal grant to study the crisis. Therefore, federal agencies and other entities looking for grant money have a vested interest in declaring a crisis–whether there actually is one or not.

The article explains that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently altered its temperature data in order to show that a hiatus in global warming is not really happening.

The article further reports:

“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study.

The study was highly criticized for inflating the temperature record since the late 1990s to show vastly more global warming than was shown in older data. The warming “hiatus” was eliminated and the warming trend over the period was more than doubled.

“There’s been so much criticism of NOAA’s alteration of the sea surface temperature that we are really just going to have to use the University of East Anglia data,” Pat Michaels, a climate scientist with the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

“I don’t think that’s going to stand the test of time,” Michaels said of NOAA’s recent adjustments.

Get out the popcorn and stay tuned.

 

Sometimes The Logic Just Escapes Me

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the nuclear deal with Iran. The article cites an interview on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) were Secretary of State Kerry stated that Iran won’t use the money to support terrorism because it isn’t “allowed” to do so. He then clarified that there is nothing about this in the nuclear deal, but that existing U.N. resolutions prohibit Iran from supporting Hezbollah and other terrorists.

The article points out:

But wait! Existing U.N. resolutions also prohibit Iran from producing nuclear bombs. If all it takes to stop Iran is a U.N. resolution, why does the administration think we need the current agreement?

Please follow the link above to Power Line to watch the interview.

The article reports:

Kerry went on to add that Iran has significant domestic needs, including rebuilding its oil infrastructure. He suggested that the mullahs will put the money to such peaceful uses. I agree that some of the windfall will no doubt be spent domestically. But that is the other half of the problem: the billions in cash, plus the economic relief that will continue to flow from the removal of sanctions, will validate the mullahs’ policies and entrench their power. We should be trying to get the mullahs turned out, not helping them to perpetuate their rule.

The problem with Iran going nuclear is that the mullahs are in control of the country. They do not represent a government that is willing to live at peace with all of their neighbors. It is ironic that the Iranian government has done more to unite many of the Arab countries with Israel that diplomacy could ever do.

 

This Is Supposed To Be A Solution???

Last week we lost four valiant men in an attack on a recruiting center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and there are reports this morning that a fifth man has died. This is not the first time a recruiting office has been attacked by someone with links to Islam. In 2009, an Army recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas, was attacked by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, born Carlos Leon Bledsoe. There is a documentary about how Carlos Bledsoe became Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad and how his family and the family of Andy Long, the soldier killed in the attack, have struggled with the loss of their sons. It is called, “Losing Our Sons,” and is worth watching.

We have a problem. The policy of making military bases a gun-free zone was signed into effect in February 1992 by Donald J. Atwood, deputy secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush. Frankly, I think we have lost more soldiers because of this policy than we would have without it.

So what is the military going to do about the problem of Islamists shooting American soldiers in America? Well, the answer is further proof that government is not the solution–it is the problem.

Gateway Pundit posted an article yesterday about the military’s response to the shooting in Chattanooga.

This is a tweet sent by ABC News Pentagon reporter Luis Martinez on Friday evening:

chattanoogatweet

The article further reports:

Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno said on Friday he has no plans to arm recruiters or add security patrols to military recruitment centers in the wake of the Islamist terror attacks on unarmed, unguarded military offices in Chattanooga, Tennessee on Thursday. Odierno basically said he doesn’t trust his troops to handle their weapons properly.

Also on Friday, the Marine Corps ordered recruiters to not wear their uniforms at work for ‘force protection.’

The whirring sound you hear is John Wayne spinning in his grave.

This Is Just Ugly

Yesterday CBS News reported that the deal with Iran negotiated by America, Russia, France, China, the United Kingdom and Germany will be voted on by the United Nations Security Council on Monday. Since five of the countries who negotiated the treaty with Iran are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, it is fairly certain the agreement will be adopted.

The article reports:

CBS News foreign affairs analyst Pamela Falk says the resolution will make the Iran nuclear deal international law, but will delay its official implementation for 90 days, to allow for the U.S. Congress’ consideration.

Falk explained that while Congress cannot block the implementation of the deal, if the legislative body votes against it and has enough votes to override a promised veto from President Obama, it is not clear what would happen next.

Whether Congress approves the treaty or not, it goes into effect internationally. Whatever happened to America? First of all, even if Congress votes against the treaty, the treaty goes into effect worldwide. So where is American sovereignty? Second of all, why do we need Congress if the Senate’s role to advise and consent to treaties has been taken out of the equation.

The article concludes:

If U.S. lawmakers were to decide after Monday’s vote that they wanted changes to the terms of the agreement, it would essentially be too late, because it would require the Security Council to propose a new resolution — and there would likely be little appetite for such deliberations among the other negotiating partners.

The chairman of the Senate’s foreign relations committee, Bob Corker, on Thursday wrote a letter to President Obama saying, “We urge you to postpone the vote at the United Nations until after Congress considers this agreement.”

But the chief U.S. negotiator in the Iran talks, Wendy Sherman, rejected that idea Thursday.

She told reporters: “It would have been a little difficult when all of the (countries negotiating with Iran) wanted to go to the United Nations to get an endorsement of this, since it is a product of the United Nations process, for us to say, ‘Well, excuse me, the world, you should wait for the United States Congress.'”

Sherman said the council resolution allows the “time and space” for a congressional review before the measure actually takes effect.

America has become internationally irrelevant.

This Would Be So Much Easier If We Would Just Get Back To Basics

Andrew McCarthy posted an article at the National Review today about the recently announced nuclear treaty with Iran. Yes, it is a treaty.

This is the lead paragraph from the article:

It is time to end the Kabuki theater. The Corker Bill and its ballyhooed 60-day review process that undermines the Constitution is a sideshow. If you scrutinize President Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, you find that the president ignores the existence of the Corker process. So should Congress.

So what does the U.S. Constitution say about treaties?

“The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

The deal with Iran is a treaty. It needs to be treated as such.

The article further reports:

Obama’s Iran deal also ignores the existence of Congress itself – at least, of the United States Congress. As I’ve previously detailed (piggy-backing on characteristically perceptive analysis by AEI’s Fred Kagan), the deal does expressly defer to the Iranian Congress, conceding that key Iranian duties are merely provisional until the jihadist regime’s parliament, the Majlis, has an opportunity to review them as required by Iran’s sharia constitution. The United States Constitution, however, is a nullity in the eyes and actions of this imperial White House.

There is no way America should ever defer to any other constitution, much less one subject to Sharia Law.

Let’s get back to the guidelines set forth in the U.S. Constitution, which is supposed to be the ‘supreme law of the land’ in America. It is time we got acquainted with what it says and got back to following it.

Please read the entire article. It contains a few very good suggestions on how Congress can limit the damage that will be caused by the current nuclear deal with Iran. The question is whether or not Congress will have the backbone to stand up for America.

There Are Rules For This?

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about the charges that Planned Parenthood is selling aborted baby parts for profit. Since the Obama Administration has been a strong supporter of Planned Parenthood, White House spokesman Josh Earnest was asked about the charges.

The article states:

On Friday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the group’s explanation was good enough for the White House.

“I did read the news reports indicating that the policies that are followed by Planned Parenthood are entirely consistent with the strictest ethical guidelines that have been established in the healthcare industry,” Earnest said.

He then tried to refer questions about Planned Parenthood’s compliance with those standards to the group itself, and deflected when a reporter pressed him on whether the president believes it is ethical to sell aborted fetus remains.

“There are medical ethicists that have taken a close look at this, and Planned Parenthood, I understand, has said that they follow those ethical guidelines and in fact the highest ethical guidelines,” he said. “But for their compliance with them and exactly what that means, I’d obviously refer you to them.”

“I don’t have intimate knowledge of the kinds of practices that they engage in,” he added.

Evidently there are rules for selling aborted baby parts and Planned Parenthood is following them. It is truly sad that our culture has fallen to this level.

Some Good News From The Wisconsin Supreme Court

On July 6, I posted an article about the use of a Wisconsin law called the “John Doe Law” to intimidate people who support conservative candidates. People have had their houses invaded by the police and their Constitutional rights denied because of their support of conservative candidates.

Today, Scott Johnson at Power Line reported that the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ended John Doe investigations.

The Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel reported today:

“It is utterly clear that the special prosecutor has employed theories of law that do not exist in order to investigate citizens who were wholly innocent of any wrongdoing,” Gableman ( Justice Michael Gableman) wrote.

Calling the challengers brave, Gableman wrote that their litigation gave the court “an opportunity to re-endorse its commitment to upholding the fundamental right of each and every citizen to engage in lawful political activity and to do so free from the fear of the tyrannical retribution of arbitrary or capricious governmental prosecution. Let one point be clear: our conclusion today ends this unconstitutional John Doe investigation.”

This is a practice that needed to be stopped as soon as possible.

Summing Up The Iran Deal

Michael Ledeen posted an article at Forbes Magazine yesterday explaining the details of the Iran nuclear deal.

Mr. Ledeen states:

It’s what I predicted it would be:  a “no-deal deal”  in which the Iranians promise to behave themselves and we pay for it. Tehran gets a big cash “signing bonus” of over a hundred billion dollars, and, over time, an end to various sanctions enacted by the United States, the European Union and the United Nations. Iran swears to do nothing to make atomic bombs, and we permit them to enrich uranium.

The article concludes:

This is precisely backwards. As Khamenei has said, the Vienna deal in no way mitigates Iran’s hatred of us, or their intention to destroy us. We need to respond by challenging the regime in Tehran. The best way to do that is to do the same thing we did to Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet Union: Support the regime’s opponents to create a free Iran. This is no mere gesture; the overwhelming majority of Iranians detest the regime.

Needless to say, no such sensible policy is going to be adopted by this administration. Obama has avidly pursued a strategic embrace of Iran for a long time, beginning with the presidential campaign of 2008. Now he’s collaborating with them on Middle Eastern battlefields, making them much richer—indeed very possibly rescuing them from social/political/economic catastrophe largely of their own making—and more powerful.

Never mind the grand bargain. We need a sensible Iran policy before they kill many more of us.

It’s time to pray that the Senate has the backbone to refuse to approve this and to override the President’s veto of their disapproval.

Sometimes You Just Have To Wonder

North Carolina recently passed some voting laws designed to prevent voter fraud. Despite what you have heard, voter fraud is a problem in America.

As I reported in 2011:

“Most of the findings focused on a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who formerly worked for the Service Employees International Union. Among the findings were that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. The other registrations included one of a woman who registered six times in the same day; registrations of non-citizens; so many applications from one Houston Voters collector in one day that it was deemed to be beyond human capability; and 1,597 registrations that named the same person multiple times, often with different signatures.”

That is just one example. I actually think 24,000 voters in one city could make a difference in the election results. That is why I believe in voter identification.

There seem to be a number of people in North Carolina protesting the new voter identification laws. Protest is their right, but one has to wonder why they would not want to be sure that only voters legally entitled to vote do so.

Yesterday ABC News (Channel 11) posted a story about the protest. It seems that many of the protesters were not from North Carolina. One man interviewed was from Boston. These are paid protesters!

The is the video posted on YouTube:

The article reports:

However, the movement’s de facto leader, NAACP head Rev. William Barber says the GOP video shows no such thing. He points out that the NAACP invited anyone who wanted to support the cause to go to Winston-Salem for that voting rights rally and says he’s not at all surprised people in other states took them up on it.

As for the GOP’s broader charge that out-of-state unions are both footing the bill and providing the foot soldiers for Moral Mondays, Barber told us he “won’t dignify the accusation.” His only comment: “I’m going to pray for them and their shameful attempt to change the subject away from voter suppression. Our fight is in the courts and with the legislature.”

The protester in the video just admitted that the unions were paying the protesters. I guess the Reverend may have missed that. As far as voter suppression goes, anytime a person who is not legally entitled to vote casts a ballot in an election, he suppresses the vote of someone who is legally entitled to vote. The voter identification law will end the current voter suppression–it will not create voter suppression.

I Wonder How We Will View This In Ten Years

There is a bit of mob hysteria going on right now about the Confederate battle flag. It is not the Confederate flag–it is not even the ‘stars and bars,’ although it is occasionally called that by people who do not know the history of the flag.

Yesterday I attended a meeting of the House Homeland Security, Miltary, and Veterans Affairs Committee in the North Carolina Legislative Building. The meeting was chaired by Representative Michael Speciale from Craven County. WRAL.com posted an article about this meeting. I have included a link to their article although the article is totally misleading.

First of all, I would like to say that this committee meeting had nothing to do with any of the ruckus that is currently ongoing about Confederate flags and memorabilia. The Bill was originally filed in the North Carolina Senate on February 3rd of this year. The purpose of the Bill is to set up a standard procedure for preserving historic items from North Carolina’s history. There were people in the meeting who tried to make this a discussion of the Confederate battle field and other civil war items, but that is not what the Bill is about.

The article at WRAL did report one important comment made during the meeting:

But Rep. Larry Pittman, R-Cabarrus, compared efforts to remove Confederate monuments to George Orwell’s novel 1984.

“History needs to be retained. You don’t know what you are without your history,” Pittman argued. “We need to face it and, like it or not like it, it is what it is, and we shouldn’t be trying to change it. And I don’t think the government has the right to change what history is.”

The Bill will be voted on by the North Carolina House of Representatives next Tuesday. The Bill easily passed the Senate in April, but that was before the insanity started. It is truly sad that many Americans wants to erase our history rather than learn from it.

As Representative Speciale noted, “This bill has nothing to do with what’s happened over the Confederate flag. But I think that’s a good reason why we need something like this to stave off the flames of passion. Because once an item is destroyed, an item is removed, a historical item, it’s gone.”

We need to preserve our past, learn from it, and move on. Destroying it accomplishes nothing.

 

 

Blessing The Terrorist

The U.K. Telegraph posted an article today about one aspect of the nuclear deal with Iran that allows a known terrorist to be granted an amnesty and taken off the list of proscribed Iranians. The list of those Iranians granted amnesty includes a number of senior members of the Revolutionary Guards.

Qassem Suleimani has been granted amnesty. He is the head of the Revolutionary Guard’s elite Quds force. He trained and equipped Shia militias in southern Iraq to fight American and British soldiers. He is also said to have trained the Taliban in the building and setting of roadside bombs in Afghanistan.

The article further reports:

Another example of the craven concessions the White House had made to Tehran is the way future inspections will handled. Iran’s disinclination to make full and transparent disclosures on its nuclear programme is well-documented. Given the opportunity to cheat, they will do so. Which is why inspections by qualified teams of nuclear inspectors is so important.

Only from now on the onus will be on the West to make the case that Iran is not playing by the rules by handing over its intelligence to prove so. For under the terms of the accord, we must “justify” the need for inspections, which in effect means handing over all the intelligence we have on Iran’s illicit activities. Of course Iran has been desperate to find out how Western intelligence learned about the existence of nuclear enrichment sites like Natanz and Fordow and, if we comply with the requirements set out in the accord to the letter, this is what will happen, with all the implications that will have for all our sources who risk their lives to tell us the truth about what the regime is up to.

The actual agreement is posted in the U.K. Telegraph article. Please follow the link above to read the details. There really is nothing good I can say about this deal. Americans are still held prisoner in Iran, and Iran still has a nuclear program. It doesn’t seem as if the current agreement will accomplish anything good.

Defending The Indefensible

Yesterday I posted a story showing a video of a Planned Parenthood executive negotiating the sale of aborted baby parts. Obviously, Planned Parenthood is denying the charges.

Today, The Hill posted an article stating Planned Parenthood’s claim that the video is misleading and that the only thing Planned Parenthood was doing was sharing fetal tissue for medical research.

The article reports:

Democrats have been mostly silent on the issue as details continued to emerge Tuesday evening, when Planned Parenthood released 11 pages of attack points against the makers of the video.

The rapid rise of what has widely been called a “sting video” has surprised some Democrats on the Hill, including one aide who called the attention “unexpected.”

When asked about Republicans’ planned investigations into Planned Parenthood, Schakowsky said she wanted an investigation, instead, into the Center for Medical Progress, which she called “a phony company.”

Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), another prominent supporter of abortion rights, also dismissed the latest attacks against Planned Parenthood.   

“They’ve been attacking Planned Parenthood for years,” she said. “They’ve been calling for investigations for years, and they surface videos and they come on the attack … and I think it’s outrageous.”

Lee also said she has not seen the video.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who is also a member of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said she had not heard of the video and could not comment.   

“I’ll take a look at it, but I did not see it so I have no idea what’s in it,” she said.

Take a look at these arguments. Demanding an investigation into the Center for Medical Progress is a way to deflect attention away from Planned Parenthood. Another defender of Planned Parenthood refuses to acknowledge that there might be anything new in this video. Another defender would not comment because she had not heard of the video. Does anyone believe that you could have turned on the news at any time yesterday and missed hearing about the video?

The article also reported:

Democrats have been mostly silent on the issue as details continued to emerge Tuesday evening, when Planned Parenthood released 11 pages of attack points against the makers of the video.

Note that Planned Parenthood is not defending its actions–it is simply attacking the people that exposed the truth.

The selling of any part of aborted babies should be illegal. I don’t care what the purpose is, it should be illegal. We have people complaining about scientific testing done on animals. Who is standing up for murdered babies? We have people protesting the killing of baby seals. Who is going to protest the killing of baby humans?

This practice should not even qualify as part of any civilized society.

I Have No Words

The Weekly Standard posted an article today about the sale of aborted baby parts by Planned Parenthood. The article includes the following undercover video of a Planned Parenthood executive negotiating a deal.

This is the video (also found on YouTube). I have embedded it because I feel that it may be taken down in the near future. I am not sure that I would recommend watching it.

Keep in mind that the federal government has been funding Planned Parenthood for years. Tax money is supporting them. Also keep in mind that the inspiration behind Planned Parenthood is Margaret Sanger, who was believed in racial “purification.”

The article at The Weekly Standard concludes:

Previous investigations by Live Action have caught Planned Parenthood employees admitting on tape that they’re willing to perform sex-selective abortions and turn a blind eye to child sex trafficking. Planned Parenthood, an organization that performs hundreds of thousands of abortions each year, receives more than $500 million annually in taxpayer funding. The organization’s political arm, which has the staunch support of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, in turn spent more than $20 million in 2012 on efforts to elect Democratic politicians who support a right to abortion on demand.

Is this something you want your taxes supporting?

 

The Beginning Of A Middle Eastern Nuclear Arms Race

The signing of a nuclear agreement with Iran will mark the beginning of a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt understand Iran’s desire to build a world-wide caliphate under Sharia Law. The also understand that the possession of a nuclear weapon by Iran will help make that possible. Israel has had nuclear weapons for a long time, but has never been a threat to its neighbors–Israel has always made it clear that its nuclear weapons (which they only recently admitted having) are for defensive purposes only. Considering the neighborhood they live in, it is probably a really good thing for them to have nuclear weapons.

There will be two major changes in the Middle East as a result of this agreement. The first is that within a fairly short time, Saudi Arabia will become a nuclear power. I suspect Egypt will not be far behind. The second result is that Iran will now have the money to buy the delivery system for the nuclear bomb that they will build within the next few years (despite this agreement). We have seen this play before–it resulted in North Korea going nuclear. We have not learned the lessons of history.

Here are some quotes from various news sources on the treaty:

From PJMedia:

This deal is an historic disaster. Not only does it legitimize Iran’s nuclear program, but it goes far to confer legitimacy on Iran’s regime — the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. For the U.S., it’s a variation of running up massive U.S. government debt, and leaving the next American president — as well as America’s people, and our allies — to face the real cost. Which in this case involves nuclear weapons.

From Yahoo News:

President Hassan Rouhani told Iranians in a live televised address that “all our objectives” have been met by a nuclear deal agreed on Tuesday with world powers.

In doing so he said “God has accepted the nation’s prayers”, and the accord would lift “inhumane and tyrannical sanctions” that have caused years of economic distress to people and businesses.

From CBN News:

The agreement leaves Iran’s nuclear facilities intact and allows it to continue to enrich uranium, a deal that satisfied its leaders.

Iran also achieved its most sought-after reward: lifting economic sanctions. The economic benefits are potentially massive. It stands to receive more than $100 billion in assets frozen overseas and an end to a European oil embargo and various financial restrictions on Iranian banks.

 We will wait and see if Congress and the United Nations approve this deal, I hope they do not, but I am not optimistic. This is not a step toward peace–it is step toward war.

 

Where To Find The Pathway To Greece

The Daily Caller posted an article today listing some of the things Bernie Sanders wants to implement if he becomes President. Among them are making public universities tuition free (will the teachers work salary free?) and a responsible pathway to citizenship for immigrants that is “achievable for people at the lower end of the economic spectrum. Because everyone knows America needs more low income people to collect money from the government.

Greece is going bankrupt because it has spent beyond its means. Does Bernie Sanders think America can continue to spend beyond our means and not suffer the same fate? The European Union is essentially imposing austerity on Greece as the cost of allowing Greece to remain in the EU. Evidently Greece did not have the self-discipline to impose fiscal restraint on itself.

It you want to follow Greece down the path the bankruptcy, vote for Bernie Sanders!

 

 

I Had No Idea Why My Dishwasher Took So Long

My house was built in approximately 2013. Because of when it was built, it has relatively new appliances. I wondered what was going on the first time the dishwasher took more than two hours, but now I know.

The Daily Signal posted an article yesterday about how government regulations impact home appliances.

Some of the examples given:

Exhibit A: A federal rule to cut energy use of microwave ovens when they are off (this is not a joke). To reduce energy use by two watts per oven (also not a joke) the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office pushed manufacturers to adopt a technology that caused the ovens to fail 50 percent of the time in the Department of Energy’s own tests.

Exhibit B: Dishwashers with interminable cycle times. To save eight cents of hot water, federal mandates led to wash cycles taking much longer to complete. Two- and three-hour cycles, virtually unheard of 20 years ago, are commonplace today.

My washing machine also takes twice as long as my old clunker used to take.

The article concludes:

The bureaucrats-know-better-than-consumers mindset is especially nonsensical when it is applied to businesses that relentlessly monitor energy use. Such is the case with the trucking industry, which employs GPS and a host of driver and truck monitoring technologies to shave fuel use to the minimum. A 10th of a mile per gallon is a big deal. Operators do not need federal mandates to spur cost cuts.

That isn’t stopping the federal government from pushing costly new efficiency rules on the trucking industry. Regulatory proponents, of course, claim it won’t cost a thing. The director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies said, “The beauty of the proposal is that the cost of the necessary improvements will be paid for by the savings associated with the increased fuel efficiency.” This association of regulators either believes in free lunches or stupid executives.

What regulation mongers don’t seem to believe is that consumers and businesses can be trusted to make intelligent decisions. Maybe we need an Independence Day from busybodies.

It would be nice if the government would let the free market determine these things. I suspect we would not only have more efficient appliances, we would have appliances that performed their tasks quickly and efficiently.

Why Are We Negotiating?

Today’s Washington Post posted an article about Washington Post journalist Jason Rezaian.

The article reports:

An Iranian court on Monday held a third hearing for a Washington Post journalist facing charges that include espionage in a trial that has drawn sharp criticism from press freedom groups and the State Department.

The attorney for Jason Rezaian, The Post’s bureau chief in Tehran, said the “remaining charges” were reviewed during the closed-door session in the Revolutionary Court.

But the lawyer, Leila Ahsan, could give no further details about the session. She is barred from publicly discussing the proceedings against Rezaian, who has been detained nearly a year.

Jason Rezaian held dual citizenship in Iran and the United States. He worked in Iran as a journalist.

The article further reports:

The Revolutionary Court held two sessions in Rezaian’s trial in May and June. The charges against him include espionage and distributing propaganda against the Islamic republic.

Rezaian, his Iranian wife and two photojournalists were detained July 22, 2014, in Tehran. His wife, Yeganeh Salehi, a correspondent for the National newspaper in Abu Dhabi, was later released on bail. A photojournalist also faces charges related to the case.

The claims against Rezaian, 39, appear to include a visit he made to a U.S. consulate seeking a visa for his wife and a letter he wrote seeking a job in the Obama administration in 2008 — material that was apparently taken from his confiscated laptop.

Jason Rezaian is not the only American citizen the Iranians currently have in prison. I truly believe that we should suspend all negotiations with Iran and leave the economic sanctions in place until these political and religious prisoners are released and sent back to America. I really don’t understand why we are continuing to negotiate with a country that puts American citizens in prison.

Bias?

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article today about the battle between Ted Cruz and The New York Times on the subject of Ted Cruz’s book, A Time for Truth. Ted Cruz has been on a book-selling tour drawing long lines of people buying signed copies of the book. According to Bookscan, the book is the third bestselling hardcover non-fiction book in the country. However, the book is nowhere to be found on The New York Times Top 20  Best Seller List. The New York Times claims, “In the case of this book, the overwhelming preponderance of evidence was that sales were limited to strategic bulk purchases.”

The article reports the response from Ted Cruz and his political campaign:

This statement is false, and the Times knows it.

There were no “strategic bulk purchases.” Cruz spent last week on a nation-wide book tour, signing copies of his book at multiple locations. Booksellers at each event had long lines—sometimes over 400 people per event.

Pictures from some of these signings may be found here: Arlington, TXKaty, TX, and Sioux City, IA.

“The Times is presumably embarrassed by having their obvious partisan bias called out. But their response—alleging ‘strategic bulk purchases’—is a blatant falsehood,” said Cruz campaign spokesperson Rick Tyler. “The evidence is directly to the contrary. In leveling this false charge, the Times has tried to impugn the integrity of Senator Cruz and of his publisher Harper Collins.

“We call on the Times, release your so-called ‘evidence.’ Demonstrate that your charge isn’t simply a naked fabrication, designed to cover up your own partisan agenda. And, if you cannot do so, then issue a public apology to Senator Cruz and Harper Collins editor Adam Bellow for making false charges against them.”

The article at Power Line reports that right now Ted Cruz’s book ranks number 9 in sales among all the books at Amazon. I do question The New York Times’ judgement on this. It will be interesting to see if they continue to ignore the book or if they attempt to come up with evidence to back up their charges that the sales of the book are only in bulk–not individual sales.