Tag Archives: Los Angeles Times

Another Significant ObamaCare Court Case

Posted on by

Yesterday National Review Online posted an article about a current court case that represents a significant threat to ObamaCare. Halbig v. Sebelius (since renamed Halbig v. Burwell, for the current HHS secretary) was argued before a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Court in March. The case involves the government subsidies paid by the exchanges included in ObamaCare.

The article states:

If the Supreme Court ultimately finds that the Obama administration violated the law in doling out those subsidies, it could force a wholesale revision of Obamacare. In January, The Hill quoted a key Obamacare supporter as saying that Halbig was “probably the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act.” Jonathan Turley, a noted liberal constitutional-law expert at George Washington Law School, recently agreed, writing in the Los Angeles Times that Halbig “could leave Obamacare on life support.”

…The Halbig plaintiffs — individuals and small businesses in six states that didn’t establish state exchanges — argue that the Obama administration is breaking the law by offering those tax subsidies in all 50 states. The plaintiffs argue that if the subsidies hadn’t been offered in their states, they would have been exempted from the individual-mandate penalties of Obamacare because they couldn’t have afforded to pay for health coverage.

I have no idea how this case will be decided. The writer of the article believes that if the case is decided against ObamaCare it will force Congress and the President to make positive changes in the law (particularly if a Republican Congress is elected).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit is expected to rule on this case within the next week.

 

Energy Policy From Someone Who Doesn’t Understand Economics

Posted on by

Just for the record–I do not support dirty air or dirty water. I simply believe that extreme environmental policy does little to help the environment and a lot to damage the economy. Considering the fact that the American Gross Domestic Product went down in the first quarter of this year, now is not the time to take any action that will have a negative impact on the American economy. Evidently our President does not share that belief.

On Wednesday the Los Angeles Times reported that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce is warning that President Obama’s proposed environmental policies could cost the economy tens of billions of dollars in lost investment and millions of jobs.

The article reports:

Although the size of the proposed reduction has yet to be announced, the chamber’s report estimated that such a rule could result in an average annual drop of $51 billion in economic output and 224,000 fewer jobs every year through 2030, with the Southeast feeling the biggest pinch.

The chamber said the numbers were based on modeling from the economic research firm IHS, using assumptions that the regulation would set a 42% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2030 from 2005 levels — an aggressive percentage that is close to a target previously cited by President Obama.

Today the Milwaukee Wisconsin Journal Sentinel posted an article on the impact of the environmental policies announced by President Obama.

Here is a list of some of the consequences:

For example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently released a study showing that the rule will cost consumers in our region $3.3 billion per year in higher electricity prices.

Another study done by NERA Economic Consultants predicted the rule will cost consumers between $13 billion and $17 billion per year. Yet another study released by the Heritage Foundation predicts the rule will cost a family of four $1,200 per year by 2023.

The article also points out the questionable impact of these changes on the environment:

The rule is expected to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the U.S. by 970 million tons by 2030. Although that sounds like a lot, it is essentially meaningless in the global scale of things.

While the EPA has us busy destroying jobs and our economy in the name of global warming orthodoxy, the rest of the world will increase carbon emissions by 4.7 billion tons over the same time period.

For those keeping score, that means other countries will collectively increase carbon emissions by 6 tons for every ton reduced by Americans under the EPA rule. So much for saving the planet.

The EPA’s new global warming rule is a lose-lose proposition for energy consumers and workers. It represents the worst kind of regulation in that it has enormous and painful costs and essentially no benefit.

We really need an administration that considers the impact of its actions on the average American. This legislation is not good for everyday Americans working hard to support their families.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Government Works

Posted on by

Yes, government can actually work. You haven’t heard about this one example because it really does not illustrate what the media wants illustrated, but government can work.

Yesterday The Blaze reported on some comments made by Rush Limbaugh about what is happening in Wisconsin. You haven’t heard much about this, but the state has done an amazing turn around.

The story reports:

The state of Wisconsin’s unemployment rate is “rapidly falling” and the government’s budget ended the year with a $912 million surplus, Limbaugh explained. He says the dramatic turnaround is due in large part to the conservative policies of Gov. Scott Walker.

What’s even more amazing, he continued, is the fact that Walker is going to “rebate the money in the form of tax cuts to the people, who he said own the money.” Limbaugh says the news is “earth-shattering” because, in one of the bluest states, Walker was targeted for removal twice but continued to implement conservative policies that he was confident would help his state — and his strategy appears to be working.

If you think back a little bit, you remember what Governor Walker went through to implement his plans for the state. He had protestors trashing the capitol, he survived recall elections, and personal attacks, but he just kept on moving forward.

The article reminds us:

“He’s going to cut income taxes and property taxes, and he made the point that it’s not just a gimmick of budgeting or accounting. It’s the result of serious, significant policy changes,” Limbaugh argued.

“Now, folks, what I just told you was not reported once anywhere in what you would consider mainstream media. It was not reported on one cable network, much less all of them. It was not reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times,” he added. “It was reported in Wisconsin. There was an AP story on it, maybe some local papers picked it up, but just as a filler.”

“And to me, for us as conservatives, Wisconsin and Governor Walker, I mean, everything that we want to happen, happened there,” the radio host concluded.

When government is done right, unemployment goes down, taxes go down, and everyone gains. When government is done wrong, unemployment goes up, taxes go up, the number of people receiving food stamps goes up, and everyone loses.

It is, in the long run, up to the voters to decide what they want.

“He’s going to cut income taxes and property taxes, and he made the point that it’s not just a gimmick of budgeting or accounting. It’s the result of serious, significant policy changes,” Limbaugh argued.

“Now, folks, what I just told you was not reported once anywhere in what you would consider mainstream media. It was not reported on one cable network, much less all of them. It was not reported in the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times,” he added. “It was reported in Wisconsin. There was an AP story on it, maybe some local papers picked it up, but just as a filler.”

“And to me, for us as conservatives, Wisconsin and Governor Walker, I mean, everything that we want to happen, happened there,” the radio host concluded.

Listen to the segment via the Daily Rushbo:

Walker is proposing a $504 million property and income tax cut plan as a means to return some of the surplus money to the people of Wisconsin. Some Democrats and Republicans are already criticizing the plan and are calling for changes.

“The budget surplus is really your money,” Walker recently said at a meeting of the Wisconsin Grocers Association. “You earned it.”

However, some lawmakers are concerned that Walker’s tax cut plan would increase the state’s projected budget shortfall from $700 million to $800,000 million. The Republican governor argues the estimates don’t take into account any revenue growth, which he says will cover the difference.

The unemployment rate in Wisconsin dropped to 6.2 percent in December and has been dropping steadily since 2011.

Featured Comments

  • Shreknangst

    A $912 million surplus, turns into a projected $700-$800 million deficit … a $1.6 Trillion negative shift.
    Somehow that sounds like Reagan era traditional GOP math and economics … Where are the Tea Party and their idea of cutting deficits? This guy seems to be creating a massive one, and, naturally, Rush doesn’t see it.
    A 6.2% unemployment rate doesn’t leave much room for growth in the economy. To wipe out that $1.6 Trillion negative shift, the state would need to get to nearly zero unemployment.

    Shreknangst

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

TheBlaze

Channel Finder

Find TheBlaze on your TV

Restoring Love
Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Numbers Don’t Lie

Posted on by

There is a basic principle in government that if you tax a behavior you get less of it and if you subsidize a behavior you get more of it. So what behaviors and being taxed in ObamaCare and what behaviors are being subsidized?

According to Heritage.org marriage is being taxed and living together without benefit of marriage is being subsidized.

The article reports:

The law is structured to provide less support to a husband and wife than it would to the same couple if they were cohabiting. In essence, it will tax married couples to fund the benefits it provides to couples who cohabit, divorce, or never marry. The impact of this discrimination will affect couples at every income level and creates a scenario in which couples’ wisest financial decision would be to divorce or forgo tying the knot.

…Without the benefits of an intact family, children are 82 percent more likely to live in poverty and tend to fare worse on a wide range of economic measures. In their teens, they are more likely to engage in high-risk behaviors such as sexual activity, substance abuse, and anti-social behavior. They also tend to fare worse on emotional and psychological outcomes and have lower levels of academic achievement and educational attainment.

The family is the backbone of American society. Why is the Obama Administration passing laws that weaken it?

Another problem with ObamaCare is its attack on the Middle Class. Because of the way the program is structured, the cost of everyone’s insurance has to increase; however, many lower-income Americans will be eligible for subsidies that many middle and upper class families will not receive. There is a massive redistribution of wealth hidden in ObamaCare.

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times posted an article explaining how ObamaCare is impacting the people of California.

The article explains some of the sticker shock the residents are experiencing:

A number of factors are driving up rates. In a report this year, consultants hired by the state said the influx of sicker patients as a result of guaranteed coverage was the biggest single reason for higher premiums. Bob Cosway, a principal and consulting actuary at Milliman Inc. in San Diego, estimated that the average individual premium in 2014 will rise 27% because of that difference alone.

Individual policies must also cover a higher percentage of overall medical costs and include 10 “essential health benefits,” such as prescription drugs and mental health services. The aim is to fill gaps in coverage and provide consumers more peace of mind. But those expanded benefits have to be paid for with higher premiums.

The government is not know for its efficiency or its compassion–both of which are needed in healthcare. Hopefully as people begin to see the impact of ObamaCare on a healthcare system that is not perfect but is working, changes can be made that will make it a more equitable and cost-efficient program.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It All Sounds So Sensible…

Posted on by

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times reported that California Governor Jerry Brown has signed legislation aimed at taking handguns and assault rifles away from 20,000 Californians who acquired them legally but have since been disqualified from ownership because of a criminal conviction or serious mental illness.

Now on the surface, that sounds like a really good idea, but let’s take it apart for a minute. Who determines the disqualification? Can one person determine the disqualification?

The article reports:

“This bipartisan bill makes our communities safer by giving law enforcement the resources they need to get guns out of the hands of potentially dangerous individuals,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor.

This law allows for confiscation of guns from ‘potentially dangerous individuals.’ Gun confiscation is definitely not part of America‘s tradition. I have recently posted a few articles that really make me wonder about what this law would be like down the road.

On April 6, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a U.S. Army training instructor listing Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism along with Al Qaeda and Hamas during a briefing with an Army Reserve unit based in Pennsylvania, Would Christians have their guns confiscated under the California law because they were seen as ‘potentially dangerous?’

On April 12, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about a New York man who had his guns confiscated because his 10-year-old son talked to some his classmates about bringing a water gun, paintball gun, and BB gun with them to the house of a schoolyard bully. He was told he could get his guns back when his son is eighteen and moves out of his house. Needless to say, there is a lawsuit making its way through the courts.

On March 28, I posted an article (rightwinggranny.com) about attempts to take Second Amendment rights away from America’s veterans.

There is a pattern here. The guns are being confiscated not only from criminals, but from law-abiding citizens deemed dangerous. The thing the lawmakers have forgotten here is that the guns most criminals have are not registered and they are not likely to be confiscated. Therefore, all you have done is to disarm law-abiding citizens because some authority considers them a threat. That is not a really good idea in a free society.Enhanced by Zemanta

Can American Aid Buy Peace ?

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting that the American State Department is working out a deal with the new Egyptian government to give them $1 billion in debt relief. Aside from the fact that America faces its own debt problems, what in the world are we supporting? This is obviously an effort by the State Department to encourage Egypt to keep the peace treaty it signed with Israel that returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt. Unfortunately, that peace is danger due to the actions of the new Egyptian government.

On August 6, the Los Angeles Times reported that Islamic militants have increased their presence in the Sinai Peninsula since the revolution in Egypt. We need to understand the the new government of Egypt will align itself with Iran and is fundamentally opposed to the existence of Israel.

The article in the Wall Street Journal reports:

But the election in June of Egypt’s new Muslim Brotherhood-backed president, Mohammed Morsi, has called the strength of the old alliance into question. Mr. Morsi selected Beijing last week for his first official trip outside the Middle East, followed by a trip to Iran—moves some observers saw as a deliberate snub to Egypt’s traditional Western backers.

The arrival of an Islamist government followed by political upheaval and disconcerting moves on the international stage fueled questions over the reliability of Mr. Morsi as a U.S. ally. But his efforts at internal stability and his public criticism of Syria’s regime while visiting Tehran last week, which angered his hosts, have helped balance U.S. views of the new Egyptian leader.

At the present moment, America is dealing with record budget deficits and facing drastic cuts to our military. I realize that I am only an ordinary citizen, but it makes absolutely no sense to me to give $1 billion to a country that is in the process of aligning itself with countries that do not wish us well.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Arab Spring Strikes Again

Posted on by

Today’s Jerusalem Post is reporting that Egypt has terminated its supply of natural gas to Israel. The article reports that a senior Egyptian military official has stated that the deal is not cancelled, but halted because of a business disagreement over the transfer of payments.

A BBC story on the shutoff reported that Egypt supplies around 40 percent of Israel’s natural gas. Israel uses natural gas to generate electricity.

The article at the Jerusalem Posts reports:

“We have no information that the contract has been nullified,” one Foreign Ministry official said.

The official added that if the report was indeed true it would be a “grave development” with ramifications on the normalization of ties between the two countries under the 1979 peace treaty. But, the official added, this was not an agreement between governments, but rather between private companies and the Egyptian government.

Steinitz said he viewed with “deep concern the unilateral Egyptian announcement over terminating the gas deal with Israel, both because of its diplomatic and economic aspects. This is a dangerous precedent that diminishes the peace treaty” between the neighboring countries.

On March 23 the Los Angeles Times reported:

The Obama administration announced Friday that it intends to deliver all $1.3 billion in promised aid to Egypt’s military this year, despite calls from lawmakers and rights advocates to hold back money because of limits on political rights in the North African nation.

It seems to me that if Egypt cuts off the supply of natural gas to Israel, America should immediately cut off all aid to Egypt.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Hidden In The Highway Bill Passed In March

Posted on by

Thomas.gov posts the text of bills that have passed Congress. They also post the votes and other details about the bills. The Highway Bill that passed the Senate was S.1813. It passed on March 19th. There were a few things in the bill that should be of concern to Americans.

This is one part of the bill I am concerned about:

SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.

    `(a) In General- If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926′.
    `(b) Seriously Delinquent Tax Debt- For purposes of this section, the term `seriously delinquent tax debt’ means an outstanding debt under this title for which a notice of lien has been filed in public records pursuant to section 6323 or a notice of levy has been filed pursuant to section 6331, except that such term does not include–
    `(1) a debt that is being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement under section 6159 or 7122, and
    `(2) a debt with respect to which collection is suspended because a collection due process hearing under section 6330, or relief under subsection (b), (c), or (f) of section 6015, is requested or pending.
    `(c) Adjustment for Inflation- In the case of a calendar year beginning after 2012, the dollar amount in subsection (a) shall be increased by an amount equal to–
    `(1) such dollar amount, multiplied by
    `(2) the cost-of-living adjustment determined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar year, determined by substituting `calendar year 2011′ for `calendar year 1992′ in subparagraph (B) thereof.
    If any amount as adjusted under the preceding sentence is not a multiple of $1,000, such amount shall be rounded to the next highest multiple of $1,000.’.
    (b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for subchapter D of chapter 75 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
    `Sec. 7345. Revocation or denial of passport in case of certain tax delinquencies.’.
    (c) Authority for Information Sharing-
    (1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (l) of section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    `(23) DISCLOSURE OF RETURN INFORMATION TO DEPARTMENT OF STATE FOR PURPOSES OF PASSPORT REVOCATION UNDER SECTION 7345-
    `(A) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall, upon receiving a certification described in section 7345, disclose to the Secretary of State return information with respect to a taxpayer who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section. Such return information shall be limited to–
    `(i) the taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer, and
    `(ii) the amount of such seriously delinquent tax debt.
    `(B) RESTRICTION ON DISCLOSURE- Return information disclosed under subparagraph (A) may be used by officers and employees of the Department of State for the purposes of, and to the extent necessary in, carrying out the requirements of section 4 of the Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926′.’.
    (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Paragraph (4) of section 6103(p) of such Code is amended by striking `or (22)’ each place it appears in subparagraph (F)(ii) and in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) and inserting `(22), or (23)’.
    (d) Revocation Authorization- The Act entitled `An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the `Passport Act of 1926′, is amended by adding at the end the following:

`SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT.

    `(a) Ineligibility-
    `(1) ISSUANCE- Except as provided under subsection (b), upon receiving a certification described in section 7345 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 from the Secretary of the Treasury, the Secretary of State may not issue a passport or passport card to any individual who has a seriously delinquent tax debt described in such section.
    `(2) REVOCATION- The Secretary of State shall revoke a passport or passport card previously issued to any individual described in subparagraph (A).
    `(b) Exceptions-
    `(1) EMERGENCY AND HUMANITARIAN SITUATIONS- Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of State may issue a passport or passport card, in emergency circumstances or for humanitarian reasons, to an individual described in subsection (a)(1).
    `(2) LIMITATION FOR RETURN TO UNITED STATES- Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), the Secretary of State, before revocation, may–
    `(A) limit a previously issued passport or passport card only for return travel to the United States; or
    `(B) issue a limited passport or passport card that only permits return travel to the United States.’.
    (e) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on January 1, 2013.

Note that this portion of the bill does not take effect until January 1, 2013–after the November election.

In September 2010, the Los Angeles Times reported:

Privacy laws prevent release of individual tax delinquents’ names. But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama’s very own White House owe the government they’re allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes. That would cover a lot of special chocolate desserts in the White House Mess.

In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS’ parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Department, where Secretary Hilda Solis’ husband had some back-tax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System’s board of governors owe $1,076,733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

Does this new law apply to those people?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Happened To Our Representative Republic ?

Posted on by

Today’s Los Angeles Times posted a story about the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals’ rejection of Proposition 8 as unconstitutional. Proposition 8 is a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage.

CNS News reports:

California’s Proposition 8 passed with 52 percent of the vote in 2008. It added a provision to the California State Constitution which states: “(O)nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

I am not a lawyer, and I don’t always understand how things work legally, but it seems to me that if Proposition 8 passed with a majority of votes, it should become law.

The Los Angeles Times reports the argument of those who oppose Proposition 8:

Instead, they simply held that Prop 8 was unconstitutional because it took away “rights” that had already existed in California for same-sex couples – including the ability of same-sex couples to adopt children, to raise children together, to become foster parents together and more.

“Because under California statutory law, same-sex couples had all the rights of opposite-sex couples, regardless of their marital status, all parties agree that Proposition 8 had one effect only,” Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote for the majority in the 2-1 decision.

“It stripped same-sex couples of the ability they previously possessed to obtain from the state, or any other authorized party, an important right — the right to obtain and use the designation of  ‘marriage’ to describe their relationship. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Reinhardt, citing the 1996 Romer v. Evans decision, said the California law violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that the Constitution does not allow for “laws of this sort.”

CNS News pointed out:

“This battle is far from over,” said Sears {Alan Sears, Alliance Defense Fund(ADF)} , who has advised clients in numerous state and federal court cases involving same-sex marriage challenges.

“Judge Reinhardt has been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court more times than any other judge in American history,” he added.

Historically, the two-parent heterosexual family is the foundation of a healthy society. Why are we trying so hard to tear down the things that give us stability and provide a foundation for our society?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Why Is Someone Burning Cars In Los Angeles ?

Posted on by
français: voiture cabriolet hotchkiss Biarritz...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Los Angeles Times is reporting that there have been 40 arsonist-caused fires across Los Angeles in the past three days. Most of the fires were started on cars, some later spread to buildings.

The article reports:

Authorities said they remained unsure whether the fires were the work of one arsonist or several people, perhaps including copycats. Although the majority of the fires have occurred in the Hollywood area, some also were reported in the San Fernando Valley, Westside and as far south as Lennox near the 105 Freeway.

The article states that a security camera at the location of one of the fires may have gotten a picture of the person who lit the fire. The article also states that: 

Police were broadcasting a description of a white man in his mid-30s with a receding hairline and a ponytail.

Hopefully the person (or people) responsible for this can be found quickly and brought to justice.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The True Christmas Spirit

Posted on by
Stonewood Rd. in Baltimore Maryland cropped fo...

Image via Wikipedia

There are people among us who practice Christmas all year long. The Los Angeles Times posted a story about some of them today.

Earl Johnson, a former Army Ranger who served in Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan, Rich Blake, 32, a Marine Corps veteran; and Jeremy Johnson, 34, a Navy veteran, are part of Operation Oliver, a mission to clean up one of Baltimore Maryland’s worst neighborhoods.

The article at the Los Angeles Times reports:

Operation Oliver, which began in July, is a one-year commitment to the neighborhood, the veterans say. It involves cleaning up alleys, rehabilitating homes, organizing volunteers and notifying police about illegal dumping sites and drug dealing.

To say the idea has caught on would be an understatement. Word of the intensive yearlong service project has spread throughout Maryland — and the nation.

Tons of trash have been hauled away, homes have been rehabilitated, and the drug dealers and prostitutes are being pushed out of the neighborhood.

These men have already served their country abroad. Now they are making a considerable difference at home.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Looking Past The Headline To The News

Posted on by
John_F_Kennedy_1964_Issue-5c.jpg

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Los Angeles Times posted a story with the headline, “Election laws tightening in GOP-run states.” Interesting headline. Why are election laws being strengthened in Republican rather than Democrat states? There are two ways to look at this–the Democrats would have you believe that the Republicans are trying to hinder minority voters, the Republicans would have you believe that they are combating voter fraud. Which is closer to the truth?

The article reports:

But Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the GOP drive was triggered by “the infamous example of ACORN,” the collection of community organizations which, he said, submitted 400,000 fraudulent registrations in 2008. He called the new laws “common-sense proposals” to “preserve the sanctity of our elections by ensuring that only eligible voters vote.”

The results of the election of 2008 would not have been changed had voter fraud not existed, but in a close election, voter fraud can change the results. It s an accepted fact that Mayor Daley stole the election in 1960 for John F. Kennedy.

Wikipedia (not my favorite source) reports:

Known for shrewd party politics, Daley was a stereotypical machine politician, and his Chicago Democratic Machine, based on control of thousands of patronage positions, was instrumental in bringing a narrow 8,000 vote victory in Illinois for John F. Kennedy in 1960. A PBS documentary entitled “Daley” explained that Mayor Daley and JFK potentially stole the 1960 election by stuffing ballot boxes and rigging the vote in Chicago. In addition, it reveals, Daley withheld many votes from certain wards when the race seemed close.

I have no problem with requiring voter identification. Identification is required to do many things in our society that are considerably less important than voting–rent a video, board an airplane, cash a check, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, and receive any sort of federal assistance. Voting is at least as important as any of these.The election of 2012 may be close. I would prefer that whatever the result is, it represents the rule “one man, one vote.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Closing Your Eyes To Danger Does Not Make It Go Away

Posted on by

Yesterday at rightwinggranny.com I posted excerpts from the American Enterprise Institute report on the increased activities of Hezbollah terrorists in Latin America. Last Sunday I reported at rightwinggranny.com on a speech given by Brigitte Gabriel in Massachusetts that night. Ms. Gabriel spoke of the Muslim Brotherhood’s infiltration into the American government.

Today the Daily Caller reported:

Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole confirmed on Wednesday that the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive.

The article further reports:

In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials.

…Specifically, al-Marayati called for a new “interagency task force” to review the training materials — a task force including representatives of the Islamist organizations the FBI is tasked with monitoring.

We are in serious peril if this sort of thinking continues. I just hope we can hold on until 2012 and elect people who will at least recognize the fact that the number one threat to America at this time is Islamic terrorism. Hezbollah is financed and backed by Iran–they are not Baptists. We need to wake up and pay attention.

Enhanced by Zemanta

More Bad News From Operation Fast And Furious

Posted on by
22 – El Paso, Texas

Image via Wikipedia

On Saturday the Los Angeles Times reported that 100 assault weapons acquired under Fast and Furious ended up in a home belonging to the purported top Sinaloa cartel enforcer in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, whose organization was terrorizing that city with the worst violence in the Mexican drug wars.

The article reports that three months into the Fast and Furious program, El Paso, Texas, began to emerge as a hub for the weapons traffic.

The article reports:

On Jan. 13, 2010, El Paso police stumbled upon 40 firearms after following a suspicious dark blue Volkswagen Jetta that backed into a garage at a local residence, according to federal court records.

The article further reports:

Two others, Ivan Chavira and Edgar Ivan Galvan, were subsequently charged in that gun recovery, along with the recovery of 20 Fast and Furious weapons on April 7, 2010, in El Paso. Those guns also were discovered by chance by local authorities, and ATF trace records show that the weapons were purchased in Phoenix two weeks before they were found in El Paso.

Notice that in both cases, the weapons were discovered by alert police officers–whatever tracing the government claims to have put on these guns was non-existent. The Los Angeles Times also posted a chronology of events regarding Fast and Furious through October 8. It is amazing to realize the scope of this program.

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Update On Fast And Furious

Posted on by

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted an article yesterday with some new details on Operation Fast and Furious. The New York Post has reported that the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) ordered one of its agents to buy weapons with taxpayer money and sell them directly to a Mexican drug cartel.

The article reports:

Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy four Draco pistols for cash and even got a letter from his supervisor, David Voth, authorizing a federally licensed gun dealer to sell him the guns without bothering about the necessary paperwork. …

This is no way to run a country. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that Fast and Furious guns turned up in El Paso, Texas in January 2010.

The article at Hot Air speculates on why the Fast and Furious was allowed to continue after it became obvious that the operation was out of control. There are two possible reasons:

1.  The first is that the anti-gun Obama administration deliberately wanted American guns planted in Mexico in order to demonize American firearms dealers and gun owners. The operation was manufacturing “evidence” for the president’s false claim that we’re to blame for the appalling levels of Mexican drug-war violence.

Or:

2. A second notion is that the CIA was behind the whole thing, which accounts for all the desperate wagon-circling. Under this theory, the Agency feared the los Zetas drug cartel was becoming too powerful and might even mount a coup against the Mexican government. So some 2,000 weapons costing more than $1.25 million were deliberately channeled to the rival Sinaloa cartel, which operates along the American border, to keep the Zetas in check.

The article at Hot Air suggests that it may be a combination of the two. At any rate, it would be nice to see someone in the government held accountable for this horrible operation.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Federal Program Gone Horribly Wrong

Posted on by
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explo...

Image via Wikipedia

Last Thursday the Los Angeles Times reported that a second violent crime has been linked to the Fast and Furious gun program.  Two Arizona undercover police officers attempted to stop two men in a stolen vehicle approximately five months after the Fast and Furious program began. The men in the stolen vehicle rammed their cars, threatened them with guns, and fled into the desert. The driver and passenger were caught. The driver was charged with aggravated assault on a police officer, driving the stolen vehicle and illegal possession of the weapons. The passenger, a citizen of Mexico, was charged with possession of narcotics and the stolen vehicle.

A Beretta pistol and AK-47 semiautomatic assault rifle were found in the stolen Ford truck, the police said.

The article reports:

The weapons found in the vehicle were the 9-millimeter Beretta, hidden under the front console, and the AK-47 in the back seat. Authorities in Arizona said they were told both weapons were illegally purchased under the Fast and Furious program that began in November 2009. Also in the truck were four boxes of ammunition for the AK-47, a box of 23 9-mm bullets for the Beretta, and four cases of Bud Light beer.

The article reports that about 2,000 weapons were allowed to be illegally purchased in the Phoenix area, and the vast majority were lost track of by ATF agents. The Fast and Furious program is a disgrace to this country, and those responsible for it need to be relieved of their authority.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Man Who Wrote The Soundtrack For The 1950’s Dies

Posted on by
A photograph promoting the film Jailhouse Rock...

Image via Wikipedia

Today’s Los Angeles Times is reporting that Jerry Leiber, the lyricist of the team of Leiber and Stoller’s, died yesterday in Los Angeles. Leiber and Stoller wrote most of the songs we remember from the 1950’s. Their songs were recorded by Elvis, the Coasters, Peggy Lee, the Drifters, the Beatles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Buddy Holly, Fats Domino, the Everly Brothers, Barbra Streisand, the Rolling Stones, Aretha Franklin and others.

The most recorded Leiber and Stoller song is “Kansas City.” The story of Leiber and Stoller is the story of the early days of rock ‘n roll.

The article reports:

Besides writing and producing their own songs, the duo produced other artists’ music on Leiber-Stoller labels — Spark (with Lester Sill), Red Bird and others — and broke ground by becoming the first independent record producers at a major label, Atlantic Records.

Graham in his book on the duo points out that radio was mostly regional and TV had just started coming into American living rooms when Leiber and Stoller started writing for Ray Charles, Joe Turner and other black artists. It was only when Presley covered “Hound Dog” in 1956 that their music began crossing over into the mainstream, paving the way for rock ‘n’ roll to dominate the youth culture.

Please follow the link to the article and read the story of Elvis Presley’s recording of “Hound Dog.” It captures the essence of the time.

We have lost half of the duo that wrote the soundtrack of the life of anyone over the age of 60.

Enhanced by Zemanta