Memorial Day Thoughts

Sorry this one is late today, but we spent most of the day in the car driving back from visiting some friends in Georgia. We had a decent weekend.

And today is Memorial Day, the day we should pause and remember those who have fought for what most of us still hold dear... our freedom. So I'll offer my thoughts on the meaning of the day.

As with many other people in this country, I have a relative who served in the armed forces. My father was an Air Force pilot. In Korea, he flew an A-1 Skyraider, which is a propeller-driven dive bomber. In Vietnam, he flew as a forward air controller in what was basically a single-engine Cessna. His job was to spot air defenses facing incoming strikes, and to coordinate air assaults as they occurred. All that in an almost unarmed Cessna.

Unfortunately, I lost my father back in 1983. As I was heading to college, he died of cancer.

On this day, I try to take at least a few minutes to remember my dad as he was when he was healthy. He served his country with distinction in two wars, and I couldn't be more proud of him for that.

You have to understand that our armed forces are our protectors from outside threats... the men and women who serve are responsible for keeping this country free.

And that's an epitaph that I think would be worth having: "He died so that freedom may live."

There are worse ways to live your life than that.


Read the rest...

Counterpunch #12: Tomorrow Is Election Day

Welcome to Counterpunch! Episode #12. Today's topic: Tomorrow is primary election day.

Sherry Walker, of Left In Alabama, and I both give our pre-primary messages to registered voters.

Athe Counterpunch! episodes are now online as videos on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/PoliticsAL.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9AYQAGLkTUg

Let us know what you think of the Counterpunch feature.





Here is the transcript of my position:


Have you ever gotten to the polls during a general election and been very unhappy about the candidates you have to choose from? Well, tomorrow is primary election day, and that’s your chance to help choose what candidates will be on the ballot in November.

So, if you know who you intend to vote for; if you know the issues of the races and the candidates’ positions ON those issues; if you’ve researched the candidates and know where they stand… then go to the polls tomorrow and vote. They’re open from 7am to 7 pm, so there is a wide window of opportunity. We need you.

If, however, you don’t know who you are voting for; if you don’t even know all the candidates running, and if you plan to make up your mind once you get there, based upon name recognition, party affiliation, or maybe who is passing out flyers in front of your polling place… then please stay home. We don’t need ignorant voters selecting candidates for no discernible reason, so sit back down and give it a miss this time.

We do NOT need voters who are ignorant of the issues selecting a candidate based upon criteria that in no way predicts what KIND of elected official that candidate will be.

We DO need informed voters who understand the issues and select their candidates accordingly. If you are one of those, then go vote. Otherwise, I assure you, we will NOT miss you at the polls.

For Politics Alabama, I am Matthew Givens

Read the rest...

Sessions Wants Kagan Papers

The Democrats want Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court approved as quickly as possible. Republicans want to take some more time to make sure they're reviewed ALL documents that she has authored or contributed to. Seeing as how Kagan has never served as a justice of any sort, the Republicans are right on this one... and the White House isn't helping by being slow in releasing requested documents.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/sessions-pushes-for-release-of-kagan-papers/?ref=politics

The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee suggested on Friday that the White House is foot-dragging on the release of 160,000 pages of documents relating to Solicitor General Elena Kagan’s days in the Clinton White House.

The National Archives has said it is working to release the information, and will begin making some documents available as early as June 4. But the Republican, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, wants assurances that all the documents will be released by June 28, when confirmation hearings are to set begin.

Republicans claim the Democrats may be trying to hide things, and threaten to derail the nomination if the Kagan information is withheld.

In a letter to White House Counsel Bob Bauer on Friday, Mr. Sessions suggested that Mr. Obama’s failure to issue a formal waiver for release of the documents is slowing the process down. Writing that he was ‘’concerned by certain ambiguities,’’ Mr. Sessions asked the White House to state in writing that Mr. Obama does not intend to assert executive privilege. A spokesman for the president said Mr. Obama has already made his intentions clear.

The letter comes on the heels of Mr. Sessions’ warning earlier this week that without full access to the documents, he will not allow confirmation hearings to go forward. Mr. Sessions does not have a say in the timing, but if Republicans raise enough of a fuss – and if the records are in fact not available by the hearing start date — the public clamor could make it difficult for Democrats to move ahead.

By now, you'd think that the leader of the "most transparent administration in history" would realize that living up to that includes releasing information on your SCOTUS nominations.
Read the rest...

And The Sestak Scandal Continues

Yesterday, the White house provided details on the discussions with Joe Sestak, and claimed they did nothing wrong. Today the scandal is spreading and splitting the country... the last thing that Team Obama needs right now, just before a tough primary, is allegations of bribery and corruption. About the only good thing going for him right now is that he no longer has to deal with the independent counsel law that plagued Bill Clinton.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37939.html

Bill Clinton’s picture is again a fixture on cable news.

Republicans are sternly demanding a special prosecutor.

And legal commentators are bickering over the finer points of federal criminal statutes on bribery and graft.

It feels like 1997 — but it’s 2010. And Barack Obama can’t be happy.

The White House’s confirmation Friday that it enlisted former President Bill Clinton in an effort to get Rep. Joe Sestak out of the Pennsylvania Senate primary has sent the regular players in Washington’s scandal industry to their battle stations — to pick over the very sort of insider special dealing that Obama had promised to make a thing of the past.

“That’s not the image he wants to project right now with all the things that are going on,” said Mark Rozell, a George Mason University professor who has written at length on the Clinton-era scandals.

The thing that makes this guaranteed to dominate the political scene is that there is enough to justify an investigation but not enough, yet, to prove any criminal act. (Of course, gathering such proof IS the reason to HAVE an investigation.) The thing that makes this guaranteed to produce little is that the Obama-controlled DOJ will have to appoint any special investigator, and you KNOW Obama won't let that happen.


Which is sort of why the independent counsel law was passed in the first place, wasn't it? To allow for criminal investigations in cases involving people who could block "normal" investigations?

There is sufficient evidence to investigate what happened, whether or not the final conclusion is for or against criminal charges. That such an investigation will not happen should be a crime in and of itself. For if the system of justice is prevented from working at the highest levels of our government, it loses legitimacy at ALL levels of our government.

Read the rest...

More Details On Sestak Job Offer

We finally have more details on the Joe Sestak job offer, which I wrote about earlier today:
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/05/joe-sestak-job-offer-illegal.html

Basically, the White House says they didn't approach Sestak directly, but asked Bill Clinton to talk to Sestak, to make the offer. They claim it wasn't illegal because 1) the job offered didn't carry a salary, and 2) they used Clinton as an intermediary.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006264-503544.html

But the White House denies that it acted improperly when it asked asked Mr. Clinton to talk to Sestak about dropping his ultimately successful challenge to Specter, the Republican-turned-Democrat whose defection gave Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

"We have concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law," White House counsel Robert Bauer wrote in a memo today.

Bauer wrote that while "options for Executive Branch service were raised" with Sestak last summer in an effort to "avoid a divisive Senate primary," the positions discussed were advisory and uncompensated. In addition, he wrote, White House staff did not discuss the matter with Sestak, opting instead to ask Mr. Clinton to raise it with him.

Okay, let's look at the second claim first. They claim that, by using Clinton to do the actual contact, that removes any possible illegality. But go to my post from earlier today (link above) and read the statute in question. It contains the phrase "directly or indirectly." That means it doesn't matter if the White House contacted Sestak directly or used an intermediary, if the underlying action was illegal, then it would still be illegal.

What about the second part? They claim that because the position offered wasn't a paid position, then it "doesn't count." The statute is a bit vague on this, not limiting itself to compensation or employment. It says: "any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit." The position offered wouldn't be considered employment, compensation, or contract. It COULD be considered a "position," "appointment," or "other benefit." Possibly.

Sestak was not actually offered one, single position. In fact, they "explored options" to see what might be workable.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/28/white-house-used-bill-clinton-to-ask-sestak-to-drop-out-of-race/?hp

Among the positions explored by the White House was an appointment to the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board, which provides independent oversight and advice the president.

Now let's look at that position. That spot would definitely be considered an "appointment," and I personally would consider such a position to be "a benefit," if for no other reason than that an advisory position offers political clout and influence.

Sestak has confirmed the White House account of what happened.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20006300-503544.html

"Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background," Sestak said. "He said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no."

Now look at the facts as we know them. The White House, in the person of Rahm Emmanuel, asked Bill Clinton to find out if Sestak would abandon a run for Senate against Arlen Specter if he (Sestak) were appointed to a Presidential advisory position. Sestak was aware that this was a legitimate offer originating from the White House.

As far as I can tell, what they are describing still fits under the statute in question as an illegal act. Whether or not it can be laid at the feet of the President or not is less clear... I haven't seen a single report that mentions anyone higher than Rahm Emmanuel.

So those who think the recent admissions "prove" that nothing illegal occurred are fooling themselves. True, the statute isn't enforced very well, but that doesn't mean it's not still a law. All that happened today was that the defendants were identified, pleaded not-guilty, and told their version of events.

So. Obama will not order an investigation, nor will he allow his underlings to order one. This is exactly WHY the position of Special Prosecutor was created, to investigate wrong-doings by the very government that refuses to investigate their own illegality. So let's get the SP appointed and started, and let's see if he can discover what really happened and who was involved.

Let's go, guys. Either we're a nation of laws or we're not.

Read the rest...

Obamanomics: A Cure?

I stumbled upon this video today, and I thought I'd pass it on. If you're watching the ultra-liberals at work in our government and feeling sick to your stomach, here's a prescription that might work for you. Enjoy.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.citizenlink.org/Stoplight/A000012711.cfm


Read the rest...

Joe Sestak Job Offer: Illegal?

Quick Recap: Representative Joe Sestak claims that the White House offered him an unspecified job of he would stay out of the race for Senate and let Arlen Specter have the Democrat nomination.

That's what happened, and so far the White House hasn't confirmed or denied the story. The closest to it they've come is to claim that "nothing improper took place." In other words, the defendant is pleading not guilty.

And make no mistake, if it happened, it's a crime. I draw your attention to 18 U.S.C. 600:
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/600.html

Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or in part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Clearly, as you can see, it would be a crime.


IF the White House did indeed make such an offer, and IF the President knew and approved of the offer, then this is an impeachable offense. Abuse of power is a crime at any level of government, and all the more so at the highest level.

I said IF, though, and we have to determine what really happened. Sestak says it happened, but is refusing to offer details. The White House is saying that "nothing improper happened" and hasn't elaborated. It looks to me like we are going to need a special prosecutor to get to the bottom of this thing. But the AG's office has already refused to investigate. No surprise, there, as it is controlled directly by the President's office.

Do we want a President, of whichever party, who is willing and more than willing to break the law in order to achieve political advantage for his own party? I don't... do you?

Read the rest...

National Debt Tops $13 TRILLION, Dependency Rising

Yesterday, the Obama Administration and his willing accomplices in Congress shoved the national debt above $13 trillion.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Politics/national-debt-soars-past-13-trillion/story?id=10748382

The U.S. national debt has passed the $13 trillion mark, according to USDebtClock.org, an independent website that tracks the real-time growth of U.S. revenues and spending.

A decade ago, he said, the national debt was $5.7 trillion. By 2005, it rose to $7.7 trillion. As of six months ago, it stood at $12 trillion. The larger the debt grows, the faster the U.S. government's interest payments pile up, which helps explain why USDebtClock.org's national debt tracker jumps hundreds of thousands of dollars in less than a minute.

And as the national debt spirals ever upward at an increasing rate, the degree of dependency that US citizens have on our federal government also increases.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Slaves-to-the-government-dole-94877134.html

Based on Bureau of Economic Analysis data, USA Today reported Tuesday that the portion of personal income received from private sector paychecks declined to 41.9 percent, its lowest point ever, during the first quarter of 2010. The figure was 44.6 percent in December 2007 at the outset of the current recession and 47.6 percent in the first quarter of 2000. By contrast, the personal income received from government programs climbed to 17.9 percent. Add another 9.8 percent for government employee compensation and 27.7 percent of all personal income is derived from government sources. (The remaining 30.1 percent of personal income results from small-business proprietor profits, farm profits, privately funded pensions, investment sales and dividends, and insurance annuities.)

The problem is that government only redistributes income to dependent individuals after taking it from productive individuals, a process that is reflected in tax returns. As the Tax Foundation recently pointed out, 36 percent of all individual returns in 2008, the most recent year for which data is available, showed no net tax liability. That is the highest level of non-paying tax filers in American history. As recently as 1990, only 21 percent of tax filers paid no levies. The result of this trend is that millions more Americans today pay nothing for the benefits they receive, which are paid for by productive taxpayers.

The second article linked above raises a good point. Slavery is the outright ownership of one person by another. Indentured servitude is a form of slavery, as well. Isn't a society in which the citizens are dependent upon the government to survive practicing a form of slavery as well? Economic slavery?

Throughout our history, politicians and pundits have often said "America is at a crossroads." Sometimes it was true, as in the final convulsive years leading up to the Civil War when we decided to end slavery. New data on personal income, taxes and dependency makes clear that the country is again at a historic crossroad and another form of slavery is the central issue. There are no iron chains involved this time, but dependence on government for economic sustenance is no less an enslavement.

If I own myself, then I can choose not to hand over money to our government if that money is simply handed to others for their use. But I cannot so choose, so do I really own myself? Or is my person, in the form of the money that I earn by my labor, owned by our government?

Read the rest...

Parker Griffith Showing Party Switchers Have Tough Time

I have long advised against accepting party switchers with open arms. When Arlen Specter switched parties to become a Democrat, I observed that he'd been functioning as a liberal for quite a while anyway, so the party switch just made that official. Still, I urged Democrats to defeat him at the next primary. I watched with great amusement as Specter lost his primary bid.

On the home front, Parker Griffith has switched from the Democrats to become a Republican. The state GOP leadership even endorses Griffith in the primary. I urge everyone to vote against this schmuck. Let's show him that switching parties for personal political advantage does NOT work in this day and age.

He's having trouble with a strong GOP challenger, Mo Brooks.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37839.html

On Tuesday, Griffith will come before voters for the first time since switching parties in December. The Alabama Republican is facing off against Brooks, a Madison County commissioner, and businessman Les Phillip. If no contender wins half the vote, the two who win the most votes will meet in a July runoff.

Brent Buchanan, a Montgomery, Ala.-based GOP strategist, said Brooks has tapped into perceived doubts about Griffith, who ran a tough campaign against Republican Wayne Parker to win a conservative Huntsville, Ala.-based seat.

“The problem for Parker is that people don’t feel he’s a different person than he was when he was a Democrat,” Buchanan said. “There wasn’t enough time for the base to like Parker Griffith before the election came up.”

From what I know of Mo Brooks, which I admit isn't comprehensive, I'd certainly welcome him as a candidate rather than Griffith.

To Mo Brooks, good luck on Tuesday. To Griffith, don't let the door hit ya on the way out.

Read the rest...

Dow Closes Below 10,000, First Time Since Feb

The Dow opened strong today, trading in positive territory throughout the morning and into the early afternoon. It began trending strongly downward in the last 90 minutes of trading to close down 69.30 to close at 9974.45.

Closing below 10,000 is an indicator that the market may be shifting to a bear mentality and therefore could presage a descending market over time.

Could, might, may.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/26/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm

Stocks erased gains by the close Wednesday, with the Dow ending below 10,000 for the first time in three months, as worries about global growth and a slide in the euro overshadowed upbeat economic news.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) lost 70 points, or 0.7%, the S&P 500 (SPX) index lost 6 points, or 0.6%, and the Nasdaq (COMP) lost 15 points, or 0.7%.

A global market rally and a strong housing market report gave stocks a boost in the morning, but trading was choppy through the rest of the session as the euro weakened. Stocks slipped in the last hour of trading.

Stocks have tumbled in May, with the three major indexes all losing more than 10% each, falling into "correction" mode as investors have worried that Europe's growing debt crisis is going to cut into U.S. and global economic growth.

I think the word to describe the stock market is "unstable." Because of that, traders are jittery, which makes the instability worse.


It all makes for an interesting ride, but definitely not in a good way.

Read the rest...

Private Salaries Down, Gov't Salaries UP

No matter how much PresBo and his liberal cronies TALK about a recovery happening in the private sector, most of what they are doing is having the opposite effect. In this instance, private-sector paychecks are down and public-sector (that is, government) paychecks are up.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2010-05-24-income-shifts-from-private-sector_N.htm

Paychecks from private business shrank to their smallest share of personal income in U.S. history during the first quarter of this year, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

At the same time, government-provided benefits — from Social Security, unemployment insurance, food stamps and other programs — rose to a record high during the first three months of 2010.

Those records reflect a long-term trend accelerated by the recession and the federal stimulus program to counteract the downturn. The result is a major shift in the source of personal income from private wages to government programs.

This isn't good. Our nation has prospered because we are primarily self-sufficient and independent. But thanks to PresBo and his ilk, we are losing that at a much more rapid pace than at any other time in our nation's history.


Make no mistake, this is a trend that we cannot support.

The trend is not sustainable, says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes. Reason: The federal government depends on private wages to generate income taxes to pay for its ever-more-expensive programs. Government-generated income is taxed at lower rates or not at all, he says. "This is really important," Grimes says.

Meanwhile, unemployment remains high, wholesale prices are up, and the rate of economic growth is fading even faster than was expected.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2010-02-18-wholesale-prices-jobless-claims_N.htm?csp=obinsite

The government's producer price index (PPI) shot up at double the expected pace in January, propelled by big increases in energy costs, while new claims for unemployment benefits rose in the most recent week.

The Conference Board says its index of leading economic indicators rose 0.3% last month. That's weaker than the 1.2% rise in December and a 1.1% rise in November.

That was short of the 0.5% gain that economists expected.

Isn't it lovely, living in an Obama-nation?

Read the rest...

Census Padding Jobs Numbers

We already knew that the job numbers for the summer would be skewed to show an over-optimistic look a the jobs picture. Why? Because of the Census. The government has hired A LOT of workers to conduct the census... all of which are temporary. So if you're looking at the job numbers hoping they're the start of a permanent trend, think again.

But now we find out that the the Census Bureau is padding those numbers to make the job picture look better. How? By hiring, firing, and re-hiring the same people over and over again.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/two_more_census_workers_blow_the_OqY80N3DBTvL17VmxKKR0O

Last week, one of the millions of workers hired by Census 2010 to parade around the country counting Americans blew the whistle on some statistical tricks.

The worker, Naomi Cohn, told The Post that she was hired and fired a number of times by Census. Each time she was hired back, it seems, Census was able to report the creation of a new job to the Labor Department.

So one worker could be counted several times because of the way the Census is operating. And just how good are those jobs? No telling, but they may last as little as one hour a month.

Each month Census gives Labor a figure on the number of workers it has hired. That figure goes into the closely followed monthly employment report Labor provides. For the past two months the hiring by Census has made up a good portion of the new jobs.

Labor doesn't check the Census hiring figure or whether the jobs are actually new or recycled. It considers a new job to have been created if someone is hired to work at least one hour a month.

So the "jobs exaggeration" problem is even greater than we had anticipated.

Lovely. Just lovely.

Read the rest...

Presidential Approval Index Hits Record Low

PresBo's Presidential Approval Index dropped to -22 today, the lowest it has ever been for this President.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 23% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-five percent (45%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22. That’s the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.

Overall, 43% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. Fifty-five percent (56%) disapprove.

So if this is a temporary dip in his popularity, a flash in the pan, then it hasn't bottomed out yet.
Read the rest...

Dow Unsettled, Warnings Of Instability

Last week, the Dow dropped from around 11,000 to just over 10,000, and that in spite of a late-Friday rally that closed up for the first time last week. Monday, the slide continued, and yesterday the Dow dropped 300 points before closing down 22 points.

I want to make this clear. Experts are saying that if the market goes below 10,000, it's a strong signal that we're in corrections territory and may be seeing a switch from a bull to a bear market. Yesterday, the Dow dropped below 9,800 before rallying and closing just barely above 10,000.

And some experts are warning the market is about to fall hard.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/crash-is-dead-ahead-sell-get-liquid-now-2010-05-25

Earlier economist Gary Shilling said price-to-earnings ratios are at a "nosebleed 22.5 level." The Dow was around 11,000. Money manager Jeremy Grantham recently said the market's overvalued 40%. That could mean a collapse to 6,600. Last week in Reuters' "Markets Could Be Derailed Again," George Soros echoed a "game over" warning with a "stark warning ... that the financial world is on the wrong track and that we may be hurtling towards an even bigger boom and bust than in the credit crisis."

Now Dow Theory's Richard Russell is warning the public of an imminent crash: "Sell ... get liquid ... by the end of this year they won't recognize the country."

Forecasting the performance of the stock market is usually less of a science and more closely related to locating water with a divining rod. A lot of art, wishful thinking, and guessing goes into it. Remember that when reading ANY such predictions.

But we're hearing more and more people warning of an impending crash. The market itself is displaying signs of volatility as it slowly but surely declines in value.

It may be time to shuffle your investments to protect against what may well be coming.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Obama Orders Nat'l Guard To Mexican Border

After 18 months of ignoring the "secure the border first" crowd and instead talking only occasionally about "comprehensive reform," PresBo is preparing to order national guard troops to the Mexican border to secure it against illegal immigration and drug running.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37759.html

President Barack Obama is preparing to send as many as 1,200 National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, amid growing concern about cross-border criminal activity and a simmering debate over illegal immigration.

Obama plans to submit a request to Congress for $500 million in supplemental funding to secure the border and enforce federal laws, according to an administration official.

The troops will “provide intelligence; surveillance and reconnaissance support; intelligence analysis; immediate support to counternarcotics enforcement; and training capacity until Customs and Border Patrol can recruit and train additional officers and agents to serve on the border,” the official said. The move comes in wake of Arizona’s passage of a harsh immigration law, which ignited a national conversation about illegal immigration.

Hmm... I look at this and think one thing. Isn't securing the border part and parcel of the mission of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)? So why do they need an EXTRA $500 million to perform a part of their job that appears in their mission statement?


I know, in the big scheme of Congressional funding, that $500 million isn't all THAT much, but to the rest of us it's more money than we'll see in a lifetime. That makes it a lot.

This is, of course, face-saving time for PresBo. He is taking huge beatings in the polls, and is looking for any way to increase his popularity. Seeing the vast amount of support that Arizona got for their new law, he's no doubt seeking to cash in on all that good will.

Will it work? Only time will tell... but I doubt it. Let's see how things pan out, though.
Read the rest...

Primary Peek: Congressional District 2

In our next series of look at the primary elections scheduled for next week, let's sneak a peek at the race for US House, District 2. I look at this one first for two reasons... 1) it's my district, and 2) it's the most interesting race.

On the Democrat side, only incumbent Bobby Bright is running for the seat, so he obviously will be the candidate in the November general election. The Republicans have four candidates, so let's look at them one by one.


John Bowling McKinney III
McKinney is the long-shot candidate who really has no chance of winning the primary. His platform sounds about right, as he basically wants to undo everything Obama has done. You can find his website online at:
http://www.fightingbeaumckinneyforcongress.com/

I would like to take a moment to comment on his website. In today's campaign climate, the website is your first and best way to make an impression and inform the voters. His fails first because he's on the ballot as "John Bowling McKinney III," but his website is called "FightingBeauMcKinney". Searching on his name as it appears on the ballot doesn't even produce a link to his website. If the voters can't find you, then your site is worthless. Second, it fails because all of the content is on the main page. Sure, he has a contact page and a contributions page, but everything else is on the main page... picture, platform, bio, everything. It's too crowded, and the site visitor is left scrolling and searching instead of clicking on clearly labeled links to find the content he wants.


Rick Barber
Rick Barber is also a long-shot candidate, though he has a considerably better chance at winning than does McKinney. Barber is a small businessman who has used his business to support the local Tea Party movement. He bills himself as the Tea Party candidate, much as Rand Paul did, and enjoys considerable support from those in the movement.

You can find his website here:
http://www.rickbarberforcongress.com/home/

Barber is pro-life, pro-gun, and believes in education vouchers and charter schools. He believes that Congress has only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and says he will work to make that a reality again. He opposes ObamaCare and supports free market reforms.

His campaign has generated several endorsements, but most from PACs or from individuals/groups outside of Alabama.


Stephanie Bell
Bell has served on the State School Board for five terms, and has done a fairly good job there. She is one of the politicians whom I like and keep an eye on, expecting good things from her. She has a long list of conservative credentials to rely on, and her platform is fairly predictable... as are those of most Republicans running.

You can find her website here:
http://www.stephaniebellforcongress.com/

Bell opposes ObamaCare and supports free market reforms, she opposes "job killing regulations and government bailouts," and supports securing the borders and denying "birthright citizenship" to babies born of illegal aliens.

Bell is currently running second in the polls for the Republican nominee. Barring a last-minute surge, she needs to force a runoff in order to have a shot at the Republican nomination.

Martha Roby
Roby is the front-runner for the Republican nomination, but it remains to be seen if she can avoid a runoff. She is a popular candidate who is serving her second term on the Montgomery city council.

You can find her website here:
http://www.martharoby.com/

As with all Republican candidates in this race, she opposes raising federal taxes, opposes government control of health care and Wall Street, and supports closing the borders. Position-wise, she's not much different from Bell and Barber. There are more similarities than differences in their positions, it seems.


With all candidates running on platforms that are so similar, it comes down to personal impressions of the candidates in question. I'm dismissing McKinney from my consideration for two reasons: 1) he's dead last, and 2) he's not campaigning enough to do much to fix that. If he won't make the effort during the campaign, or if he can't be effective doing so, why should I believe his service in office would be any different?

So it comes down to Roby, Bell, and Barber.

I've never been a big Roby fan, for reasons that are too lengthy to go into here. Suffice it to say that we disagree on a few key issues. I've always admired Stephanie Bell, and found that we agree much more often than not. Rick Barber is a relative unknown to me, but the fact that he is receiving so much support from Tea Party members is an indicator.

So to me the choice is between either Bell, the career politician, or Barber, the outsider candidate. Yes, I know that Roby has raised FAR more money than Bell and Barber combined, and the she is likely to win the primary... but I've never supported or voted for somebody because I thought he or she had the best chance of winning. I vote for who I think will make the best Congressman.

And in this case, I think it comes down to Stephanie Bell. I've watched her for years and I have a large degree of trust in her. Barber comes across as a good guy, but I don't know him well enough to judge his character.

Read the rest...

Presidential Approval Index Drops To -20

According to the latest Rasmussen look at Obama's popularity, it has fallen to its lowest point since the passage of ObamaCare. With 24% strongly approving and 44% strongly disapproving, his approval index hits -20. Overall, 42% approve and 56% disapprove of Obama's performance.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows that 24% of the nation's voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).

The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates are also available on Twitter and Facebook.

Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance.

Today's rating of -20 is the lowest since ObamaCare passed, and is about as low as his approval has ever been. This is an indicator which reinforces others we have seen... Democrats' best chance is to run a very conservative campaign and distance themselves from Obama and his "accomplishments."

Read the rest...

New Poll Gives Peek At Primaries

A new poll has been released concerning the upcoming Alabama primaries. The poll, commissioned by the Daily Kos and conducted by Research 2000, shows Davis leading Sparks 41-33 in the Democrat primary. Bradlye Byrne leads Roy Moore by 29-23, with Tim James in third place with 17%.
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/5/19/AL/525

QUESTION: If the Democratic Primary for Governor were held today, would you vote for Artur Davis or Ron Sparks?

DAVIS - 41%
SPARKS - 33%
OTHER - 8%
UNDECIDED - 11%


QUESTION: If the Republican Primary for Governor were held today, which of the following candidates would you vote for?

BYRNE - 29%
MOORE - 23%
JAMES - 17%
BENTLEY - 9%
JOHNSON - 3%
OTH - 2%
UND - 17%


The poll also reported results on matchups between the various candidates in the general election. Looks like it will be a Republican year, at least for Governor.


As you can see, in any matchup of the top three Republican candidates with the top two Democrats results in a Republican win. The only race that is close is the Sparks v Moore matchup, with is actually a statistical tie.

QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Artur Davis, the Democrat, and Bradley Byrne, the Republican?

DAVIS - 31%
BYRNE - 48%
OTHER - 7%
UNDECIDED - 14%


QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Artur Davis, the Democrat, and Roy Moore, the Republican?

DAVIS - 38%
MOORE - 43%
OTHER - 9%
UNDECIDED - 10%
38 43 9 10


QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Artur Davis, the Democrat, and Tim James, the Republican?

DAVIS - 37%
JAMES - 45%
OTHER - 8%
UNDECIDED - 10%


QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Ron Sparks, the Democrat, and Bradley Byrne, the Republican?

SPARKS - 34%
BYRNE - 45%
OTHER - 9%
UNDECIDED - 12%


QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Ron Sparks, the Democrat, and Roy Moore, the Republican?

SPARKS - 40%
MOORE - 41%
OTHER - 12%
UNDECIDED - 7%


QUESTION: If the election for Governor were held today, for whom would you vote for if the choices were between Ron Sparks, the Democrat, and Tim James, the Republican?

SPARKS - 38%
JAMES - 44%
OTHER - 19%
UNDECIDED - 8%
38 44 19 8


The poll also contains polling data on the Senate races, so swing out and take a look.
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/5/19/AL/525

This poll is a bit different from my analysis yesterday, showing Moore polling more strongly than he has been. To my knowledge, this is the only poll showing that, but we'll keep an eye on it.

Read the rest...

Primary 2010: Governor (R)

While the Democrats are only fielding two candidates, the Republicans will be fielding SEVEN. As a result, the looks at each candidate will be more cursory. With so many candidates, a runoff seems likely.

The top three candidates are Bradley Byrne, Tim James, and Robert Bentley. Surprisingly, Roy Moore comes in a distant fourth, polling much lower than I would have expected him to. Long-shots Bill Johnson, Charles Taylor, and James Potts round out the field. We’ll start at the bottom and work our way up:


James Potts
Potts hasn’t run much of an active campaign at all. He’s pretty much a non-entity in the race. He tends to toe the party line on issues… against gambling, pro-gun, etc. His “positions” page contains 25 different issues and what he thinks about them. Potts is a long-shot candidate with no realistic chance to win.

You can find his website here:
http://www.pottsforgovernor.com/php/index.php



Charles Taylor
Taylor hasn’t run much of an active campaign, either. The only issue on his platform page is abortion, which he is steadfastly against. Taylor is a long-shot candidate with no realistic chance to win.

You can find his website here:
http://www.votetaylor2010.com/


Bill Johnson
Johnson seems to be running a more active campaign than Potts or Taylor, but it’s not gathering much momentum. His website seems more professional and better organized. Johnson is a long-shot candidate with no realistic chance to win.

Johnson supports a statewide vote to legalize gambling, which he views as a revenue stream that “would help close the gap on some of our funding shortages.” In my opinion, we don’t HAVE funding shortages, we have over-spending, but…

Most of his issues fall in line with his experience at ADECA, being economic, employment, and education issues. He also supports an I&R (Initiative and Referendum) law.

You can find his website here:
http://www.billjohnson.org/


Roy Moore
Moore is a former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice, and has campaigned energetically throughout the state. He is campaigning with a rather catchy song, and even holds many positions that are admirable.

He wants to reduce the size of government by lowering taxes and starving it smaller, supports a two-term limit for legislators, and switching teachers to a merit pay system. He also opposes gambling and believes we should have to show a picture ID to vote.

As I said, there are many good reasons to vote for Roy Moore.

You can find his website here:
http://www.moore2010.com/


Robert Bentley
Bentley started out as a long-shot, then surged ahead rapidly. That surge has dissipated, and he is now trying to regain momentum so he can at least make a two-way runoff. He has served in the legislature (House) since 2002, and sponsored some pretty good bills. For example, he sponsored one of the several “Health Care Freedom Acts” that were introduced during the 2010 session.

Many of Bentley’s ideas on health care seem logical and sound… though not all. He has signed the “No New Taxes” pledge, for example. One of my problems with Bentley is he seems to favor big government action to “solve“ some problems. He wants a state-run insurance pool, a cabinet official to “encourage the creation and expansion of small business in Alabama,” and he voted against forming charter schools in Alabama.

Though Bentley is currently running third in polling data, the possibility remains that he could supplant James as the number two man in the runoff election that is almost inevitable.

You can find his website here:
http://www.robertbentley2010.com/


Tim James
James is currently polling second in the Republican primary for Governor, and seems willing to run his campaign on controversial stances. His most famous (infamous) is his English-only driver’s license advertisement. His theme is “common sense,” and it seems to be resonating with voters… allowing him to draw closer to Byrne.

Many of his “common sense” stances strike me as just that. For example, he claims that most new businesses come from inside the state, so out-of-state businesses should not get economic incentive denied to Alabama businesses. Other positions don’t make as much sense, such as a state-run, statewide broadband network providing Internet access. Actually, James doesn’t SAY the network should be state-run, but I don’t know how else he could realistically accomplish this goal.

I don’t see much of a limited-government candidate in James. He talks about lowering taxes, but proposes new spending programs. For example, he wants to make sure that ALL school kids will have access to a computer. In that all schools have a computer lab of some kind, they already do, so this initiative must involve more than that.

You can find his website here:
http://www.timjames2010.com/


Bradley Byrne
Byrne is the front-runner in this election, and in the likelihood that a runoff election will be held, he will run against either Tim James or Robert Bentley. He is the establishment favorite, endorsed by more of the GOP leadership than any other candidate.

Byrne opposed a constitutional convention, supporting instead a recompilation of the constitution on an article by article basis. He supports more education funding, but also wants to reform tenure and establish charter schools in the state. He pledges not to raise taxes and to “live within our means,” but doesn’t offer a strategy to do so or a plan to get the Legislature to go along. He opposes ObamaCare… but that article references Democrat leaders who are “determined to pass legislation.” This indicates that it was written prior to passage and not updated since.

You can find his website here:
http://byrneforalabama.com/


With seven candidates on the ballot, we have some good choices to make. I have not yet selected my candidate, though I am leaning towards Tim James.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Dow Closes Down 126.82

All last week, the stock market lost money, dropping slowly towards the 10,000 mark. On Friday it closed upwards about 120 points, cheering analysts that the week ended "on a high note." Today, the Dow lost all of Friday's gain and more, closing at 10066.57... down 126.82 from its opening price of 10193.93.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/534899/201005241619/US-Stocks-Close-Lower-After-Late-Sell-Off.aspx

The Nasdaq fell 0.7%, the Dow 1.2%, the S&P 500 1.4% and the NYSE composite 1.6%. Volume fell from Friday's heavy trading amid options expirations.

Financials were among the day's poorest sectors. The energy sector weakened further, accounting for some of the day's worst industry groups.

The Dow is flirting with the 10,000 mark, which is considered a danger mark. If the market closes below 10,000, it is an indicator of a probable shift from a bull market to a bear market.


Read the rest...

Democrats Push For More Spending, Debt

Democrats in Congress have put together a bill that raises a little money through taxes and spends a whole lot more. According to the CBO, it spends about $134 billion more than it raises. And that's a problem for Democrats who are pretending to care about out national debt and are claiming to be budget-conscious.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/05/22/news/economy/tax_extenders_job_bill_cost/index.htm

The bill, which is likely to become a flash point in the debate over the federal debt, would raise $40 billion worth in additional revenue, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation.

But that's not enough to fully offset the $174 billion in additional federal outlays that would occur as a result under the bill. CBO released its cost estimate late Friday.

The legislation would extend a host of tax breaks, give continued relief to the unemployed, delay cuts to doctors' Medicare reimbursements, provide support for job growth and fund disaster relief, among other things.

The bill, a melded version of proposal passed earlier by the House and Senate, won't be free of opposition on either side of the aisle. There is pressure to pay for more of the bill's provisions, and there is strong disagreement over some of the pay-fors that are included.

And this just goes to show that Democrats, for all their talk about PAYGO and being fiscally responsible, just want to spend our money on their projects. If we let the Democrats have their way, we'll be two steps behind Greece before too much longer.

Read the rest...

Primary 2010: Governor (D)

For those who are in the middle of pulling a Rip Van Winkle, we have a primary coming on Tuesday, June 1st. That’s a little over a week from now. So it’s time to start looking at the candidates a bit. Let’s start with the Democrats running for Governor.

There are two individuals running as Democrats for Governor: US Representative (AL-07) Artur Davis and Commissioner of Agriculture Ron Sparks.

Artur Davis
Artur Davis started the race as the heir apparent for the nomination, and holds that distinction today. He has served in Congress since 2003. He has a typical Democrat voting record, with some exceptions. He voted against ObamaCare, for example.


Davis is campaigning similarly to Obama… One of his early statements in campaign ads was “we’re ready to be a state that we’ve never been before.” That sounds quite a bit like the whole “change” mantra that voters embraced in 2008.

Davis’ website contains details on his positions and news on his campaign. He supports Constitutional reform, generally opposes abortion. He voted to increase the federal spending limit, to reinstate PAYGO budgeting rules, and to extend unemployment benefits without paying for them. He voted against medical marijuana and in favor of renewing the Patriot Act. He consistently votes to expand welfare programs, and supported the government takeover of the student loan program.

You can find his website here:
http://www.arturdavis2010.com/index.asp

You can find his voting record here:
http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=27560


Ron Sparks
Ron Sparks is the current Commissioner of Agriculture, and didn’t have the firmest start to his campaign for Governor. At various times, Sparks indicated he would run for Lt. Governor, Governor, Congress. That last happened while he was campaigning for Governor. So I don’t see a great deal of commitment on his part to running for Governor. It's more like he wanted an office and couldn’t decide which one. He started as the underdog and continues to trail in the polls.

Sparks' website contains some details on his positions and campaign news, but less than I would like to see. He supports an education lottery. He believes that Alabama needs a “revenue stream” that can be provided by gambling if we legalize, regulate, and tax it. He supports increased funding for Medicaid. The first three planks of his platform were:

- Reduce taxes for every family for Alabama
- Provide more money for Medicaid and increase funding for education
- Create a disaster relief fund for agriculture

How he’s going to decrease taxes and increase spending I’m not sure, but that’s his plan.

You can find his website here:
http://www.sparks2010.com/


For my own analysis, Sparks seems more than a little politically naive, here. He pushes the standard Democrat-line to increase spending on just about everything he deems important… and at the same time he can lower taxes. One thing we DON’T need in office is a Governor who believes in more massive spending programs… Lord spare us from THAT.

Davis also comes across as confused in some cases. For example, he voted in favor of PAYGO rules, but then voted to ignore those rules and extend unemployment benefits using deficit spending. He’s pretty consistent in increasing spending on welfare and entitlement programs, even in the face of a skyrocketing national debt that could threaten our solvency in coming years. To balance that, he’s supported gun rights and voted against ObamaCare. It is my opinion that Davis will likely be the Democrat candidate for Governor.

For my part, I will not be voting for either of these men.

Read the rest...

Poll: 63% Support ObamaCare Repeal

Support for the repeal of ObamaCare has been hovering between 54% and 58% ever since it was passed. Today it took a jump and for the first time is supported by more than 60% of Americans.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_law

Support for repeal of the new national health care plan has jumped to its highest level ever. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63% of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan passed by congressional Democrats and signed into law by President Obama in March.

Prior to today, weekly polling had shown support for repeal ranging from 54% to 58%.

Currently, just 32% oppose repeal.

The new findings include 46% who Strongly Favor repeal of the health care bill and 25% who Strongly Oppose it.

While opposition to the bill has remained as consistent since its passage as it was beforehand, this marks the first time that support for repeal has climbed into the 60s. It will be interesting to see whether this marks a brief bounce or indicates a trend of growing opposition.

That's a good point, and one to keep in mind.


Opinions are not static, unchanging things... they fluctuate. This 63% result could be a flash-in-the-pan that is never repeated, or it could signal new strength for repeal efforts. The only way to know for sure is to wait and see.

Read the rest...

Counterpunch: Should Congress Increase BP's Liability For The Oil Spill?

Welcome to Counterpunch! Episode #11. Today's topic: Should Congress increase BP's liability for the oil spill?

Sherry Walker, of Left In Alabama, argues that increasing that liability cap is essential. I argue that to do so would require an unconstitutional ex post facto law.

By the way, all the Counterpunch! episodes are now online as videos on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/PoliticsAL.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQE92GtbadY

Let us know what you think of the Counterpunch feature.





Here is the transcript of my position:


You can’t change the rules halfway through a game. Congress absolutely has the power to cap the liability of oil companies for damages, as they did years ago when they set that limit at $75 million. What they can’t do is change the past.

And let’s be clear, that limit only applies to incidental, not cleanup costs. BP is responsible for 100% of the cleanup costs. The limit only applies to things like fishing firms or hotels who lost business and want to be reimbursed.

Congress has the right and the power to change that liability for any future spills… but what they CANNOT do is raise the liability cap for the current spill. That would be an ex post facto law, and the Constitution does not allow Congress to pass such a law.

Imagine that 20-years ago you bought a parrot and released him into the woods behind your house. Today, Congress passes a law making that illegal, applies it retroactively, and the police arrest you today for doing what wasn’t a crime when you did it.

Congress set that liability limit and they’re stuck with it for the current spill, because the Constitution doesn’t allow them to change the rules for events that have already occurred.

Unless, of course, our Congress doesn’t care about our Constitution… and that’s something you’ll have a chance to remember in November.

For Politics Alabama, I am Matthew Givens


Read the rest...

Happy Anniversary!

I know this isn't political, but I want to take a second or two to tell you that today is my 24th wedding anniversary. I have been married to my beloved Michon for 24 years, and look forward to the second half of (or more!) our life together.

To my wife, I love you dearly. You are the best part of me, the part that makes me more and better than I am.


Thanks for the brief detour... Back to politics at our earliest convenience.


Read the rest...

People Hate Congress... Bad For Dems

Historically speaking, when a mid-term election coincides with low Congressional approval ratings, it means that the party in power will lose more seats. The lower the rating, the more seats they lose.

And it appears as if Congressional approval is at it's lowest rating since 1982.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/128120/Satisfaction-Historically-Low-Midterm-Year.aspx



So, what does this mean for Democrats this year?

So far in 2010, an average of 23% of Americans have been satisfied with the way things are going in the United States. That is well below the 40% historical average Gallup has measured since 1979, when it began asking this question. The 2010 average is also the lowest Gallup has measured in a midterm election year, dating to 1982.

Satisfaction with the way things are going is a key indicator to watch leading up to Election Day in November. Low satisfaction ratings have typically been associated with greater net seat change between parties in Congress in midterm election years, as was the case for the 1982, 1994, and 2006 elections. In each of those years, the average satisfaction rating was no higher than 33%. In 1994 and 2006, as is the case this year, the same party controlled the presidency and Congress heading into the elections, and party control of Congress changed hands after Election Day.

In years with higher satisfaction ratings, such as 1986 and 1998, the number of congressional seats changing parties was low.

In other words, they have a strong potential to lose a LOT of seats, because Congressional approval for this mid-term election is lower than it has been for the past 30 years... and the Democrats are the party in charge.

If we could steer some of those "lost seats" to somebody other than Republicans, I'd be happier... I have little faith the Republicans will sincerely try to do better. But we'll have to take what we can get, I guess. And if the price of Democrats losing power is Republicans GAINING it (and it is), then that's the price we must pay.

Read the rest...

Federal Government Vows NOT To Follow Law

Would it surprise you to learn that a branch of the Federal government has stated that it is seriously considering NOT following the law? The agency in question is ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, which is SO upset at Arizona's law that they will ignore our immigrations laws and NOT follow-up on individuals referred to them from Arizona.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/05/19/20100519arizona-immigration-law-ICE-chief-opposes.html

Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigration is not "good government," a top Department of Homeland Security official said in Chicago on Wednesday.

John Morton, who heads U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said his agency will not necessarily process illegal immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials. The best way to reduce illegal immigration is through a comprehensive federal approach, not a patchwork of state laws, he said.

Whether they like the laws or not, when law enforcement brings to their attention people who are violating the immigration law, isn't ICE REQUIRED to look into it?

If not, then why bother having laws at all?


Who are the anarchists? Libertarians, who believe in small and limited government, or illegal immigration activists, who believe that we should ignore the laws that we have on the books?

And isn't it REALLY bad when the agency responsible for enforcing laws announces it intends to ignore those laws?

Read the rest...

Rand Paul Controversy... But He Has A Point

The other day, newly anointed GOP candidate for Kentucky Senate Rand Paul apparently caused quite a stir with an answer to a question. He was talking about discrimination laws, and basically said that he doesn't think they should apply to private businesses.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/37597.html

In interviews with NPR and MSNBC on Wednesday, Paul indicated unease with the Civil Rights Act’s ban on discrimination by private businesses — sparking a political blaze that threatened to engulf his campaign even before he finished relishing his landslide primary win.

The candidate eased fears some by issuing a damage-control statement stating his opposition to discrimination and doing an interview with conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham in which he seemed to acknowledge the necessity of the Civil Rights Act.

Now, Paul was talking about discrimination in businesses serving customers, but I want to look at it from an employment viewpoint.

And I absolutely believe, and can defend the position, that businesses have the right to consider race and sex when hiring, and to NOT hire those of the "wrong" race or sex.


Example #1: A Japanese Steak House. You know the ones I mean, where you're seated around a giant cooking surface and the Chef comes out and cooks your meal at your table. He puts on a little bit of a show, too. The whole background is Japanese... the decorations, the costumes, everything. That's their gimmick, their image. Surely you're not saying that a white, good ol' boy MUST be hired as a chef? "Okay, ya'll, I'm gonna cook yew some fewd now, ya hear?" Somehow it just doesn't fit in with the image.

Example #2: Jose's Mexican Restaurant. Again, the motif here is Mexican. Doesn't the employer have the right to hire people who reinforce that image instead of shatter it? And having an Asian waiter would certainly be jarring. Imagine a snooty Englishman here: "I say, sir, would you like a taco with that?"

Example #3: Baptist Abstinence Program: Should they be forced to hire as a receptionist a young, unmarried, pregnant female? Kind of goes against their very reason for existing, doesn't it?

Example #4: Women-Only Gym. Women get tired of dressing in their exercise tights, going to the gym, and being ogled by the men. So some women-only gyms have sprung up. This example actually SUPPORTS Paul's original point, about businesses being able to refuse customers of the wrong sex or race. But to buttress my argument, doesn't it sort of defeat the whole point if they're forced to hire male trainers?

There are MANY more examples. Think of Hooter's Boys, for example, or female boy scout masters... or males leading girl scout troops. How about a white girl offering the "African Braiding" that is becoming popular in some areas? She wouldn't get much business, and few salons would hire her... for that very reason.

My point is that race and sex MATTER in the real world, and the owners of private businesses should have the legal freedom to acknowledge that.

So maybe Rand Paul isn't so radical after all...

Read the rest...

Senate Passes "Wall Street Reform," Stock Market Tanks

Yesterday, two events combined to produce a very unwanted result... the stock market dropped 400 points. First, the Senate approved the Wall Street "reform" bill, which actually does little to "fix" the problems that caused our recent difficulties.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703559004575256352143175906.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEADNewsCollection

The Senate on Thursday approved the most extensive overhaul of financial-sector regulation since the 1930s, hoping to avoid a repeat of the financial crisis that hit the U.S. economy starting in 2007.

Opponents of the bill worry that the government is overreacting, and over-regulating the financial industry. They worry the measures will crimp the free flow of capital in the U.S. economy.

"It will inevitably contract credit," said Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), who says the Senate bill "is probably undermining the system…probably making for a weaker system."

Second, though "experts" expected jobless claims to fall to 440,000, numbers came in showing they ROSE to 471,000.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/20/new-weekly-jobless-claims-rise/

The number of people filing new claims for unemployment benefits unexpectedly rose last week by the largest amount in three months. The surge is evidence of how volatile the job market remains, even as the economy grows.

Applications for unemployment benefits rose to 471,000 last week, up by 25,000 from the previous week, the Labor Department said Thursday. It was the first increase in five weeks and the biggest jump since a gain of 40,000 in February.

The forecast had been for claims to fall by around 4,000 from the previous week.

And as a result, the Dow lost almost 400 points yesterday.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jmT59dgLTTziX4p9X9MRBRpWZGdQD9FR8RR00

The Dow Jones industrials tumbled 376 points Thursday. The Dow and broader indexes are now in correction territory by having dropped more than 10 percent from their 2010 highs last month. The drop has erased the gains major indexes had made in 2010.

Stock futures have been volatile. Dow futures fell 94, or 0.9 percent, to 9,962 after falling more than 100. Standard & Poor's 500 index futures fell 10.30, or 1 percent, to 1,059.70. Nasdaq 100 index futures fell 20.25, or 1.1 percent, to 1,780.25.

And today in trading, the Dow briefly dropped below 10,000 and was down by 100 points.

The Dow Jones industrial average dropped below the psychological barrier of 10,000 and is down 100 at 9,965. The Standard & Poor's 500 index is down 11 at 1,060, while the Nasdaq composite index is down 31 at 2,173.

At the moment I write this, the Dow is down 28.27 points from it's opening value.

Folks, the market is officially in "correction" mode, which augers a substantial slide.

Cross your fingers.

Read the rest...

How To Improve Congress?

It's been a truism for a long time that people think Congress is doing a lousy job. But who do we think could do better than the people we currently have up there? According to Rasmussen, 41% think a random group of people selected from the phone book would do a better job.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2010/41_say_random_selection_from_phone_book_would_do_a_better_job_than_current_congress

Tuesday's primaries were more proof of the anti-incumbency mood felt in many parts of the nation, and a new Rasmussen Reports poll finds that many voters continue to feel a randomly selected sample of people from the phone book could do a better job than their elected representatives in Congress.

The latest national telephone survey of Likely Voters finds that 41% say a group of people selected at random from the phone book would do a better job addressing the nation’s problems than the current Congress. Almost as many (38%) disagree, however, and another 20% are undecided.

You know, that's an idea. Here's my proposal...


I am a computer programmer by trade. I can write a fairly simple program that will randomly select names from the phone book for this coming election! I will do this for free, just so we can see how this new method works.

The Constitution says that the states must select their Congressmen... but it doesn't say HOW. If the Legislature were to act in a special session, we could have this method up and running for the fall elections. (grin) Man, would all the incumbents be MAD!

But it's worth a try... Lord knows we couldn't do much worse with a random group than we're doing with these bozos currently in office. And it eliminates the problems of campaign finance reform... no campaigns to finance! It saves the state a bunch of money that is currently being spent on elections.

Hey, this idea actually has a lot of advantages to it!

What do YOU think?

Read the rest...

GAO Finds More Government Fraud

Would it surprise you to learn that federally financed child care centers have been caught defrauding the US government?
http://dailycaller.com/2010/05/19/g-a-o-report-finds-fraud-at-head-start-centers/

Federal undercover investigators found workers at federally financed child care centers frequently misrepresenting information about applicants’ job status and earnings to fraudulently register ineligible children, the Government Accountability Office said in a report issued Tuesday.

The investigators posed as parents or guardians of fictitious children and used bogus pay stubs and other documents to seek to register for day care services at Head Start centers, the report said. In 8 of 15 undercover tests, employees lied on federal forms about the applicants’ family income and other information to gain approval for the ineligible children, the report said.

Head Start, an agency of the Health and Human Services Department ith a budget of about $9 billion this year, provides child care and other services to nearly one million children nationwide. To be eligible, children must be from families whose incomes do not exceed 130 percent of the poverty level, or about $28,600 a year for a family of four.

This kind of fraud occurs every day in a wide variety of federal programs, and it will CONTINUE to happen as long as the government forces the taxpayers to fund them.


When faced with the opportunity for some "free money," is it a surprise that many people will do anything to get it? The only way to remove the fraud from such programs is to stop funding them. No free money = no fraud needed.

What say we start our budget cuts by eliminating any program that experiences a wide-spread and pervasive pattern of abuse and fraud?

Read the rest...

FEC To Regulate (Censor) Political Blogs

We know that the FTC wants to regulate Internet providers in the name of "net neutrality." Now we find out that language in the DISCLOSE Act would give the FEC the power to censor political blogs.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/05/18/from-banning-books-to-banning

Last week, a congressional hearing exposed an effort to give another agency—the Federal Election Commission—unprecedented power to regulate political speech online. At a House Administration Committee hearing last Tuesday, Patton Boggs attorney William McGinley explained that the sloppy statutory language in the “DISCLOSE Act” would extend the FEC’s control over broadcast communications to all “covered communications,” including the blogosphere.

The DISCLOSE Act’s purpose, according to Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chair Chris Van Hollen and other “reformers,” is simply to require disclosure of corporate and union political speech after the Supreme Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that the government could not ban political expenditures by companies, nonprofit groups, and labor unions.

The bill, however, would radically redefine how the FEC regulates political commentary. A section of the DISCLOSE Act would exempt traditional media outlets from coordination regulations, but the exemption does not include bloggers, only “a communication appearing in a news story, commentary, or editorial distributed through the facilities of any broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication…”

So the blogosphere would be subject to content restrictions as set forth by the FEC.

Not good.


Keep in mind that most blogs are not financed by anybody. An informal canvas of Alabama political blogs a month or two ago revealed that the only blogger receiving money for their efforts was a newspaper reporter who blogged FOR THE PAPER. In all other cases, we do what we do on our own time... nobody pays us.

There is no "campaign cash" to monitor, here... but the FEC would nevertheless have the power to regulate our speech in the name of "campaign finance reform."

It's amazing how our government can make these arguments, in light of the following words: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech."

And yet, Kagan, PresBo's nominee for SCOTUS, argued before the Supreme Court that the federal government had the power to ban books and political pamphlets. So why not blogs, as well?

Read the rest...

Counterpunch! On YouTube!

Just so you'll know, the entire collection of Counterpunch! episodes is now online over at YouTube. You can visit my channel here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/PoliticsAL





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rdRW_cMJ7iI


Feel free to subscribe to that channel if you like.


Read the rest...

Democrats: The Party Of Debt

I remember the heady days of election 2008, when Democrats were campaigning against George Bush's $400 billion deficit. "He's doubled the deficit!" they shouted loudly and repeatedly... clearly stating that they thought this was bad, wrong, ugly, and maybe even fattening.

Now that Obama has been in charge for 18 months, and now that Democrats have had overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate for the same period, we find that THEIR idea of fiscal responsibility is running a $1.5 TRILLION deficit... more than TRIPLE Bush's deficits.

Democrats are now DEFENDING deficits that are FAR larger than the Bush deficits that they attacked. Democrats claim that we can spend this nation to prosperity, ignoring the mounting debt that will one day threaten our very financial solvency.

Remember what the Democrats have been calling the Republicans for the past year or so? "The party of NO!"

The Democrats have become: The Party of Debt!


Think about it... with the Democrats firmly and undeniably in control of our Federal government, we are now spending $1.67 for every $1 of tax revenue. Ouch. And now we discover that the Democrats will not pass a yearly budget because they don't want to officially admit that they can be so fiscally inept.
http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/98409-senate-budget-chairman-says-prospect-for-budget-resolution-fading-

The chance that the majority Democrats will pass a budget this year is “fading,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday.

He is pessimistic because House Democrats don’t know whether they want to pass a resolution that would officially acknowledge the certainty of big deficits. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other Democrats have indicated that would be a tough vote in an election year.

So they have the chutzpah to run this nation's finances into the ground, but not the guts to stand up and admit it?

Ladies and gentlemen, the Democrats are truly:


The Party of DEBT!

Read the rest...

Are NOAA Hurricane Forecasts Accurate?

Every year the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) attempts to predict how many hurricanes we will have and how powerful they will be. I say "attempts," because they've been wrong three out of the past four years... or 75% of the time. With a horrible record like that, even a monkey could do a better job of predicting hurricanes.

Meet Dr. James Hansimian, who this year will attempt to use his own rigorous method to produce a prediction that is AT LEAST as good as NOAA's.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faDJzjbTfd4&feature=player_embedded

The folks over at the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) have decided to challenge NOAA's abysmal track record.


Yes, they fully realize this is, at best, an indictment of NOAA's accuracy, but think about it for a minute. If the NOAA can't even predict hurricanes over a six month period, how can we trust any long-term (25-100 years) forecasts on the effects of "global warming?"

Here is NCPPR's write-up of this challenge:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR_Hurricane_Forecast_051810.html

"If, at the end of the hurricane season, Dr. Hansimian's forecast turns out to be more accurate than NOAA's, we challenge the agency to make him an honorary member of NOAA's hurricane specialists unit," said David Ridenour. "In return, if NOAA's forecast is more accurate, we'll include a prominently-displayed mea culpa on our website."

So... we'll check back after hurricane season is over.
Read the rest...

Doctors Leaving Medicare!

Okay, all of you out there who were wholeheartedly in favor of government taking over our health care, pay attention!

Physician participation in Medicare is voluntary... nobody can FORCE a doctor to take Medicare payments. Medicare payment rates to physicians are lower than those of any private insurance company... and those rates continue to drop. So, how are doctors responding?

Apparently, Doctors in Texas are leaving Medicare in droves... in fact, it's next to impossible to find a doctor who will accept Medicare.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7009807.html

Texas doctors are opting out of Medicare at alarming rates, frustrated by reimbursement cuts they say make participation in government-funded care of seniors unaffordable.

Two years after a survey found nearly half of Texas doctors weren't taking some new Medicare patients, new data shows 100 to 200 a year are now ending all involvement with the program. Before 2007, the number of doctors opting out averaged less than a handful a year.

“This new data shows the Medicare system is beginning to implode,” said Dr. Susan Bailey, president of the Texas Medical Association. “If Congress doesn't fix Medicare soon, there'll be more and more doctors dropping out and Congress' promise to provide medical care to seniors will be broken.”

To put it bluntly, doctors can't afford to keep their practice open if they accept the ultra-low rates offered by Medicare... so they respond by rejecting Medicare patients.


And this is the best that our government can do. Are we SURE we don't want to repeal ObamaCare?

Read the rest...

Analysis Of Yesterday's Elections

Four states held primaries and special elections yesterday. I covered some of the results last night. Even though everybody under the sun will be talking about those elections today, we'll look at and analyze the results. Let's start by looking at the big four races.

Rand Paul, son of former Presidential candidate Ron Paul, won his primary battle against his GOP-backed opponent. It was a strong win in Kentucky, 58.8% to 35.4%, and sends a strong message to GOP leaders that the electorate doesn't want the kind of candidates that they do. This is being touted as a "Tea Party" win. Whether it's that or not, I don't know... but a good thing is a good thing, regardless of what you call it.

In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln (D) was unable to avoid a runoff, and she must now face Bill Halter in a two-way race. This is an important result, as it indicates a hard road ahead for incumbents this year... bearing out earlier messages that were similar.


One of the top two stories of the night, though, was Arlen Specter's loss to Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania. As you'll recall, Specter switched from the Republican party to the Democrat party because he knew he'd lose his Republican primary. So he switched... and promptly lost his Democrat primary. It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy. See ya, Specter... and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Now for the special election results. In Pennsylvania, Democrat Mark Critz easily defeated his Republican opponent. Even though Democrats have held on to the seat, at least until November when they have to do this AGAIN, they shouldn't crow with triumph quite yet. Why not? Well, Obama didn't endorse or campaign for Critz, and Critz didn't ask him to. In fact, Critz distanced himself from Obama. And he also distanced himself from Congressional Democrats by announcing he didn't like all that they were doing. He even came out and said that if HE'D been in office at the time, he would have voted AGAINST ObamaCare!

In other words, Critz won by painting himself as separate and different from the Democrats' agenda. So it doesn't say a lot about those Democrat incumbents who have to defend their health care votes in the fall.

Now let's look at the rest of the races. With the exception of Specter, every incumbent on the ballot won his party's nomination... though in most cases that candidate was unopposed. Although... in Arkansas, not a single Democrat won his Senate race, and all will head to a runoff election.

So what does all this mean? Well, if anybody was looking for crystal clarity, they didn't get it yesterday. On the GOP side, Paul's win shows how far from the electorate the GOP leadership has gotten. Specter's defeat was only poetic justice, and should alarm the HECK out of any other party switchers who still have to run. (Do you hear that, Parker Griffith?)

And Critz's win shows that Democrat candidates can win by... promising not to do what Congressional Democrats are in the process of doing. Probably NOT what Democrats wanted to hear...

Read the rest...

Breaking: Rand Paul Wins Primary!

Okay, we have some election results.

As I write this, Rand Paul has been declared the victor in his bid to be the Republican candidate for Congress.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37217504/?gt1=43001

Rand Paul defeated Republican establishment favorite Trey Grayson in the Republican primary for U.S. Senate, a closely watched race that was a test of the tea party movement's strength.

Paul, the son of former presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, on Tuesday gave a tea party activist a key win in a statewide election that could embolden the fledgling political movement in other states. With 43 percent of precincts reporting, Paul was leading with 60 percent to Grayson's 36 percent.

He called his victory Tuesday "a tremendous mandate for the tea party," and told The Associated Press that people don't want the "same old politicians" in Washington.

In Pennsylvania, with 11.8% of the precincts reporting, Arlen Specter leads Joe Sestak 54.3% to 45.7%.
http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/

You can see live election results here:
http://www.politico.com/2010/maps/

In Arkansas, Blanche Lincoln may be unable to avoid a runoff with fellow Democrat Halter. With 0.5% precincts reporting, she leads 47.5% to 40.2%.


Read the rest...

ObamaCare To Make HAMBURGERS Scarce?

As far as I can tell, this isn't a joke. Apparently one of the future effects of ObamaCare is to make it harder to find hamburgers.

According to an Executive over at White Castle Corp, ObamaCare will have the effect of cutting their income in half.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-castle-exec-obamacare-provision-would-cut-our-income-half

White Castle reports that a single provision of Obamacare would cut its net income in half -- and then some. Jamie Richardson, a White Castle executive, says, "We’ve been working on this internally from a number of different perspectives. One [provision] that has [us] the most concerned is the $3,000 penalty that kicks in when an employee’s portion of a premium exceeds 9.5% of Household Income." Richardson elaborates, "In present form, this provision alone would lead to approximate increased costs equal to over 55% of what we earn annually in net income (based on [our] past 4-year average). Effectively cutting our net income in half would have [a] devastating impact on the business -- cutting future expansion and more job creation at least in half. Sadly, it makes it difficult to justify growing where jobs are needed most -- in lower income areas." And that's all from just a single provision in a 2,700-page act.

Isn't that just lovely?


What are we to believe? Are we to believe that PresBo and his Congressional Cronies are too stupid to understand their own legislation and the HIGHLY detrimental effect it will have on this nation? Or are we to believe that they understand it perfectly and therefore WANT this nation to collapse?

If stupid and evil are our only choices, I'm sincerely hoping they're just monumentally STUPID! Because the stupid can learn and do better... evil will seek to destroy.

Read the rest...

Obama: A Fairness Doctrine For Bloggers?

Do you remember the Fairness Doctrine? That's an old liberal idea that talk radio shows be FORCED to give equal time to "opposing views." Apparently, administration officials are eying Internet blogs as the next recipients of a fairness doctrine.

Listen to Cass Sustein, the White House communications director, talking about forcing just such a doctrine upon us.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.breitbart.tv/uncovered-audio-obamas-regulatory-czar-pushes-creepy-plan-for-legally-controlling-internet-information/

He's talking about a "voluntary" program... but if people don't sign up, then he thinks Congress should consider mandates.


Elections have consequences, guys. This is government control of private lives. It's unconstitutional. And it's DEFINITELY un-American.

Read the rest...