Saturday, August 9, 2008
Just a note Georgia applied for membership in NATO and was turned down. If they had been accepted into NATO we would be at war with Russia today. "An attack on one country in NATO is an attack on all countries in NATO." Either that or Russia wouldn't have attacked at all, but that's difficult to believe given the circumstances.
Gas prices are down $32 from its record highs, and it appears that gas prices will continue to drop for the rest of the summer. "We're probably going to see gasoline at the retail level around $3.50 for Labor Day," said James Cordier, president of Tampa, Fla.-based trading firms Liberty Trading Group and OptionSellers.com." Of course gas will be cheaper in the South where I live.
If the dollar continues to strengthen and gas prices continue to drop we should be out of this economic slowdown by next summer. I don't think it takes an economics degree to figure that out.
Friday, August 8, 2008
The affair occured in 2006 and Edwards says he is not the father of Miss Hunter's baby because he the timing of the affair and the baby's birth don't add up. In other words it had more than 9 months since he had slept with her, according the John Edwards.
There are alot of sites that go into this in-depth, but this isn't going to be one of them. Edwards made a terrible decision by cheating on his wife. It probably has cost him any chance to run for office in 2012, or even to have a role at this year's Democratic Convention or any role in any future Democratic Administration. His political career is over. How this affects his marriage is between John and Elizabeth.
Check out the blogs on my blog list if you want more discussion on this topic.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
America is no longer what it once was. In 1776 when our founders wrote the Declaration of Independence they wrote these words. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." However their was slavery, women and minorites weren't allowed to vote. Whites and Blacks went to separate schools. Ate in separate Resturants and were kept separated for the majority of the country's history. There was the Dred Scott decision were the Supreme Court ruled that a slave born in the U.S. was not a citizen in 1856. It also said a man in a slave state could move to a free state and still have slaves
Only five years after the Dred Scott decision the Civil war began. We won't go into the political reasons for the war, or the fact it had little to nothing to do with slavery. The important thing is that the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments were added to the U.S. Constitution. These Amendments freed the slaves, gave them the right to vote, and guaranteed them equal protection under the law. Women were given the right to vote in 1920 as part of the 19th Amendment. However for some reason the Supreme Court didn't get the message.
At the end of Reconstruction in the south Southern States began to pass what we now refer to as Jim Crow laws. These laws separated Whites and Blacks by forcing them to use separate public accommodations. A famous supreme court case rose from these laws, Plessy V. Ferguson.
In 1896 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plessy V. Ferguson that Louisana "Separate but Equal" laws were constitutional. This decision upheld the constitutionality of segregation. The law said that racial segregation was legal has long as both blacks and whites had equal accommodations.
It wasn't until 1954 that this decision was overturned in Brown Vs. Board of Education. Years after the decision the law still wasn't being enforced in the South. In 1957 Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus had his National Guard block black students from entering Little Rock High School. President Einshower responded by federalizing Arkansas' National Guard and by sending in the 101th Airborne. The last notable event regarding Brown Vs Board of Education, was in 1963 when Alabama's Governor George Wallace stood in the doorway of Foster Auditorim at the University of Alabama to block two black students from enrolling at the University. Wallace is known for his famous saying, "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." However Wallace left the doorway when confronted with federal marshalls and the Deputy Attorney General of the United States.
Then of Course there is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed all Segregation. It also ended the Jim Crow era. The Bill Passed the House with ease but was fillabustered for 54 days before the Senate finally got enough votes to end the fillabuster and pass the bill. (you need a 2/3 majority to end a fillibuster, 67 votes) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 outlawed practices that were meant to keep blacks from voting. Poll taxes, literacy tests (which would've been impossible for most educated whites to pass), grandfather clauses (if your grandfather could vote so could you) etc. The Act gave federal oversight to elections in areas that had practiced discrimination. The Act was reauthorized in 2006 for another 25 years.
I'm sure I could go on but by now I think you probably get the point. America is no longer what it once was. It is now a true democracy where everyone is treated equal under the law. Understanding there still are some problems with discrimnation and there always will be, to say that America has gone downhill, or isn't a good country anymore just because Obama doesn't like whose in the Oval Office is elitest crap! To quote Ronald Reagan America is still the best last hope on earth. We still live in a country that fights for freedom of others. That tries to make good on past mistakes. That allows every man and woman to speak freely, and to worship any way they see fit. GOD BLESS AMERICA!
To read more from New Conservative go here http://www.thenewconservatives.blogspot.com/
Sean Hannity will face the man that Barack Obama said would tear him up, Truman Burgess Sunday at 9pm on Hannity's America. Burgess is a retired General Motors worker. Obama made the comment at an event, "I might have to put Mr. Burgess on Fox News. I'll put Mr. Burgess up against Sean Hannity, He'll tear him up." Obama thought he was joking but Hannity didn't think it was funny and will have Mr. Burgess on Hannity and Colmes tonight.
See the video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJvA1EZQ1so Only the 1 to 2 mins address the issue here. But if you like Ann Coulter you might want to watch the whole thing.
Wow even I feel bad for Mr. Burgess. Hannity will have control of the show. Burgess should've at least made sure he was facing Hannity in a semi-neutral setting like The Fox Report with Shepard Smith. Good luck Mr. Burgess looks like your another person Obama has thrown under the bus. Maybe Obama will do the right thing and sub for you at the last minute, but I doubt it.
Is everyone ready to admit that giving the Olympics to China was a terrible idea? They are blocking internet access to any website that the country, putting mircophones in taxi's to find out what people are saying about them and to collect intelligence, (they say it's to protect taxi drivers), and now the air is apparently so bad athletes are being forced to wear mask. Let's not forget all the protest involving Tibet leading up to the games.
I remember when it was being decided where these Olympics were to be held America begged them not to give them to China. Well they did it anyway. I bet they wish they would've listened now. Not to say were always right, but we were on this one.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Calm down, I said 'thin-skinned.' We can still say that, right?
Barack Obama reacted in an extraordinarily defensive manner to a simple question from a Nevada reporter recently. From Hot Air:
RALSTON: I guess what the American people want to know though Senator, is what is the real difference between you and John McCain. You are running this ad tying him to the industry saying that he has taken all of these contributions, but as you well know there is a story out today about how you supported the Dick Cheney bill and he opposed it. That bill gave subsidies to the oil and gas companies, John McCain opposed the bill saying those are tax breaks for those companies, Barack Obama favored it.
SEN. OBAMA: Hold on a second Jon, I thought I was talking to you instead of debating John McCain, but I am happy to let you serve as his proxy. The fact of the matter is that I supported that energy bill saying at the time that those tax breaks were wrong but also recognizing that this was the largest investment in alternative energy in history. And that it was important for us, for the solar industry to get off the ground in places like Nevada, for to get wind kicked off the ground, that that was something that we had to do and I immediately said during that time and subsequently that we should strip out those tax breaks for oil companies. I would point out that in December of last year, we had a vote to strip out those tax breaks for oil companies, there was one Senator that did not vote on that measure, and that was John McCain.
Absolutely stunning. A reporter asks a valid question, and Obama accuses him of serving as John McCain's proxy? Perhaps Barry is far too inexperienced to remember these days, but it used to be considered the job of the media to ask the difficult questions of our political leaders. He berates a man fr simply doing his job. Obama seems afraid of any real debate on the issues. He apparently envisions a future where he eloquently proclaims his latest positions on the issues of the day (using a prepared speech, of course) and then goes off into his White House without answering questions, while Congress thanks him with a hearty "heil, mein Fuhrer" and goes off to implement his orders.
In the rest of the interview, Ralston presses Obama on his policy reversals and asks him how voters can trust him not to shift again for political reasons. In Nevada, the proposed nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain remains a highly controversial topic, and Ralston wonders aloud when Obama will change his mind and support it — a killer for him in Nevada. Obama gets offended at the suggestion:
SEN. OBAMA: John, don’t put words in my mouth or anticipate what I am going to do. I’ve been opposed to Yucca Mountain from the start so if the suggestion is that John McCain who is in favor of Yucca right now should get a pass on that.
He was opposed to telecom immunity at the start, supported public financing at the start, thought the surge would create more violence at the start, and so on, and so on. “Don’t anticipate what I am going to do?” No one can anticipate what he will do — that’s the problem.
That's the way Obama wants it. We are not to anticipate what he will do, we are to humbly accept his greater wisdom whenever he chooses to give it, without question.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Jonah Goldberg has a wonderful piece up at National Review Online, entitled "The Spoiled Children of Capitalism." In it, he explains why he believes we have been, and I think there is a great deal of truth to this.
We’ve all witnessed the tendency to take a boon for granted. Being accustomed to a provision naturally leads the human heart to consider that provision an entitlement. Hence the not-infrequent lawsuits from prison inmates cruelly denied their rights to cable TV or apple brown betty for desert.
And so it goes, I think, with capitalism generally.
Capitalism is the greatest system ever created for alleviating general human misery, and yet it breeds ingratitude.
People ask, “Why is there poverty in the world?” It’s a silly question. Poverty is the default human condition. It is the factory preset of this mortal coil. As individuals and as a species, we are born naked and penniless, bereft of skills or possessions. Likewise, in his civilizational infancy man was poor, in every sense. He lived in ignorance, filth, hunger, and pain, and he died very young, either by violence or disease.
The interesting question isn’t “Why is there poverty?” It’s “Why is there wealth?” Or: “Why is there prosperity here but not there?”
At the end of the day, the first answer is capitalism, rightly understood. That is to say: free markets, private property, the spirit of entrepreneurialism and the conviction that the fruits of your labors are your own.
Goldberg goes on to point out that capitalism has so improved life that more people than at any other time in history make a living almost solely off their intellectual capital.
For generations, many thought prosperity was material stuff: factories and forests, gold mines and gross tons of concrete poured. But we now know that these things are merely the fringe benefits of wealth. Stalin built his factories, Mao paved over the peasants. But all that truly prospered was misery and alienation.
A recent World Bank study found that a nation’s wealth resides in its “intangible capital” — its laws, institutions, skills, smarts and cultural assumptions. “Natural capital” (minerals, croplands, etc.) and “produced capital” (factories, roads, and so on) account for less than a quarter of the planet’s wealth. In America, intangible capital — the stuff in our heads, our hearts, and our books — accounts for 82 percent of our wealth.
In large measure our wealth isn’t the product of capitalism, it is capitalism.
And yet we hate it. Leaving religion out of it, no idea has given more to humanity. The average working-class person today is richer, in real terms, than the average prince or potentate of 300 years ago. His food is better, his life longer, his health better, his menu of entertainments vastly more diverse, his toilette infinitely more civilized. And yet we constantly hear how cruel capitalism is while this collectivism or that is more loving because, unlike capitalism, collectivism is about the group, not the individual.
These complaints grow loudest at times like this: when the loom of capitalism momentarily stutters in spinning its gold. Suddenly, the people ask: What have you done for me lately? Politicians croon about how we need to give in to Causes Larger than Ourselves and peck about like hungry chickens for a New Way to replace dying capitalism.
And therein lies the rub, in my opinion. Love of capitalism is scarce, it needs to be nurtured and protected. It needs to be taught. What has capitalism done for us lately? Is there any doubt that my generation has a greater standard of living than my father's generation? We have more choices when it comes to goods and services, computers do things in seconds that most people could never do on their own. Our life expectancy is higher, more people own their own homes, more people are graduating from colleges and technical schools. By any conceivable standard, life is better now for most people than it was just 20 years ago. Does anyone doubt that my daughter's generation will have a higher standard of living than my generation has had? I can't envision how it wouldn't. Yet we seem to be always looking for something better, some illusion that does not exist.
This is the patient leaping to embrace the disease and reject the cure. Recessions are fewer and weaker thanks in part to trade, yet whenever recessions appear on the horizon, politicians dive into their protectionist bunkers....
This is the irony of capitalism. It is not zero-sum, but it feels like it is. Capitalism coordinates humanity toward peaceful, productive cooperation, but it feels alienating. Collectivism does the opposite, at least when dreamed up on paper. The communes and collectives imploded in inefficiency, drowned in blood. The kibbutz lives on only as a tourist attraction, a baseball fantasy camp for nostalgic socialists. Meanwhile, billions have ridden capitalism out of poverty.
And yet the children of capitalism still whine.
We all seem to be capitalist until the moment in our lives where we aren't winning at the current stage of the game. Then we hear cries for a housing bailout, or government-controlled health care. At any given time, millions of people in this country stand to be losing at life. The temptation always exists for some politicians to prescribe a cure that is worse than the symptoms. I think we just need a good dose of freer markets and more capitalism. What do you think?
Monday, August 4, 2008
Read all of Scott Martin's posts at Conservatism Today.
The impasse caused by Congressional Democrats' refusal to allow a vote on drilling and a probable upcoming attempt to renew the drilling ban by sticking it in a bill that would fund government for the 2009 fiscal year could result in a shutdown of government programs, according to a letter circulating from Republican Senator Jim DeMint.
Some Republicans say they are prepared to vote against a resolution to fund the federal government for the 2009 fiscal year unless Democrats agree to lift an offshore drilling moratorium. If the budget resolution fails, many agencies and departments would be denied money to operate and would be forced to close.
"We don't want the government shutdown to be an issue, but the fact is the Democrats are so overconfident that they're willing to talk about a ban and they're willing to talk about raising taxes on gasoline, so this is just pretty incredible," said Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican who is circulating a letter encouraging colleagues to demand that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, strike the drilling moratorium from the budget resolution.
"But I think that once Americans realize that this [drilling] ban will expire unless we pass something, I think there is going to be just an outcry to not vote for anything that had a ban in it."
This is a win-win here if the Republicans don't cave. Either we get more drilling or we get less government. I'm fine with either one. Most voters won't see it that way, however, and the last time Republicans were seen as shutting down government services over policy issues with the Clinton administration, the negative press was harmful to the party.
There is one big reason to think it would be different this time around, though. Most Americans are on the Republicans side in this issue, and see increased American oil production as important to both lowering gas prices and increasing our security from foreign oil.
"If the Democrats choose to hold the continuation of government operations as a hostage, then as far as I'm concerned, I can't vote for anything that has a ban in it," Mr. DeMint said. "That would just be a betrayal of everything we're talking about as Republicans. And I think that most Republicans are going to feel that way."
Republicans say the ban needs to be lifted to lower gas prices and to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil.
"On October 1, the bans on offshore drilling and oil shale recovery will end, enabling us to finally be able to develop more American energy - unless Democrats actively prohibit exploration," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican who also is circulating letter encouraging House Republicans to pressure House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, to drop the ban.
"I hope that Speaker Pelosi and Democrats in the House and Senate recognize the pain Americans are feeling and will not actively enact legislation to block the development of American energy," he said.
Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress have refused to allow a stand-alone bill on drilling. In protest, Republicans have blocked several Democratic bills in both chambers, saying they will continue to do so unless Democrats agree to a drilling vote.
Democrats control both houses of Congress, but hold only a 51-49 vote advantage in the Senate. A budget resolution may require 60 votes for passage, meaning only 41 opposing votes would be needed to block the measure.
With House Republicans already showing strength on this issue - they are holding court on a mostly empty and camera-less House floor as we speak - the key determinant will likely be the strength of Republican Senators, a historically weak bunch. I'm having nightmares of someone who sees himself as the next John McCain getting together with Senate Democrats to produce a much weaker bill than an outright end of the drilling ban. Let's hope I'm wrong and Roy Blunt is right.
"As far as I'm concerned, on October 1 we should be able to begin the leasing process of drilling and mining in both of those areas of American [energy] supply," House Minority Whip Roy Blunt, Missouri Republican, said on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" show Sunday. "In this environment, where energy is the most important issue and the only thing you're fighting over is whether you allow drilling, we'll have to wait and see. [But] I'd rather be on the side that wanted to go after American energy sources than the side that didn't."
Sunday, August 3, 2008
You can read more from Scott Martin at Conservatism Today.
Some House Republicans plan to be back on the floor this week, continuing their protest over the Pelosi-led end run around voting on increasing drilling opportunities. While the House is out of session, the hubbub on the floor last Friday played well to many Americans who are growing impatient with legislative inactivity in the face of increased gasoline costs.
More than a dozen Republicans have already committed to make appearances, according to House GOP leadership aide, including National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Tom Cole (Okla.).Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who lead Friday's five-hour talkathon after the House shut down for the August recess,are also expected to be there, according to this aide."In an urgent memo sent to GOP Members and staff Saturday (“A Call to Action on American Energy”), Republican Leader John Boehner (R-) and Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) hailed Friday’s action, and encouraged House Republicans to return to the Capitol beginning Monday morning to help keep the historic effort going," said a press release just released by Minority Leader Boehner's office.
“It’s not a request we make lightly. But the American people are suffering,” Boehner and Blunt said in the memo. “The consequences of continued congressional inaction on gas prices are unacceptable. We’ve called on the Speaker to call Congress back into an emergency session this month and schedule a vote on the American Energy Act. We must continue to make a stand until the Speaker complies.”
The session will not be televised, as the cameras C-SPAN uses are not their own, but rather are under the control of Speaker Pelosi. I am guessing there will be a few spectators there with recording equipment, however. If I was in the DC area and the time to do so, attending this would be #1 on my to-do list.Even ABC's George Stephanopoulos decided to try his hand at being an objective reporter today, (ahem) drilling Pelosi repeatedly over her reasons for not allowing an up or down vote. Check the link to read her dodges - I'll just post his questions, as they illustrate my belief that Pelosi is even losing much of her party over this issue.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, HOST: You've been getting a lot of heat for not allowing a straight up or down vote expanding drilling off the coasts of the United States. Why won't you permit a straight up or down vote?STEPHANOPOULOS: Except it’s not just Republicans that are calling for this. Members of your own caucus say we must have a vote. Congressman Jason Altmire, let me show our viewers right now, says, “There is going to be a vote. September 30 will not come and go without a vote on the opening the Outer Continental Shelf. The message has been delivered. The issue can't be ignored any longer.” He says he speaks for a lot of Democrats. He's talked to the leadership and a vote must happen.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if you feel you have the better arguments, why not give a straight up or down vote for drilling?
STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, if you’re right, why not let it be debated out and have the vote?
STEPHANOPOULOS: So what exactly are you trying to say? You say you might allow a vote as part of a comprehensive package, but you won’t allow a vote on --
STEPHANOPOULOS: Yet you brought those measures to the floor in a way under the suspension of the rules so that it couldn't be amended with a drilling proposal.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But why not allow votes on all that? When you came in as Speaker you promised in your commitment book "A New Direction for America," let me show our viewers, you said that “Bills should generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full, fair debate consisting of full amendment process that grants the Minority the right to offer its alternatives.” If they want to offer a drilling proposal, why can't they have a vote?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I want to move on to other issues. Just to be clear, you are saying you will not allow a single up or down vote on drilling. But you will allow a vote on a package that includes drilling?
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you’re not going to permit a vote, you may get beat, but you're not going to permit a vote on your own?
STEPHANOPOULOS: But that’s what I don’t understand. If you could get votes on everything else that you care about which you say there is strong bipartisan support, why not allow a vote on the drilling as well?
I've got to give Stephanopoulos credit. He refused to allow Pelosi to dodge the issue, and refused to take away the rope she was using to hang herself. If this issue significantly hurts the Democrats this fall, as I am beginning to have significant hope that it may, I think we could see the Dems drop Pelosi from the speakership. Score one point for freedom if that happens.