Some Kagan Tidbits

Interested in hearing from Kagan during her Supreme Court hearings?


In this one, she says the Constitution should be interpreted over time, as times change. This is the "living Constitution" theory, which essentially says that the Constitution means whatever we want it to mean.

Kagan: Constitution Was Meant To Be "Interpreted Over Time" from RCP Video on Vimeo.

Translation: Let's trust our government not to abuse their power.



And last year she argued before SCOTUS that banning books is fine, because government wouldn't ever really try to ban books.





Kagan has expressed a lot of views in the past that we don't want in our Supreme Court, and she is now backpedaling from them as fast as she can. Face it, she isn't the right person for this job.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Deepwater Drilling Rigs Leaving Gulf

We're now getting reports that the oil companies drilling in the gulf, upset that Obama shows no immediate signs of relaxing the drilling ban as promised, are quietly moving their deep water drilling rigs overseas where they can actually drill and make a profit.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100628-712579.html

Executives from oil and gas companies on Monday concluded an hour-long meeting with U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar without securing promises from the government to lift a deepwater-drilling moratorium imposed after a disastrous BP PLC (BP) oil spill.

“Numerous operators told Secretary Salazar that they were in the final stages of moving rigs, deepwater rigs out of the Gulf of Mexico and to West Africa and the Middle East,” according to a person familiar with the matter. “We were frankly disappointed at the lack of serious attention that was paid by the Department of the Interior on the horrible economic impact that the Department of Interior’s policies are having on the industry and on communities along the Gulf Coast.”

So, Obama is doing it again, destroying an entire industry. The oil spill was bad, yes, but by demonizing all oil companies and freezing drilling, he is damaging them and forcing them to move elsewhere to make a profit. So those drilling platforms are moving. Away from us.

Gone.


But this is typical of Obama's methods. In every situation, he tries to create a villain and then demonizes that villain... to justify whatever action he chooses to take. This time the monkey turned and bit him, and the oil companies are showing that they have other places they can work, too... they don't HAVE to drill in the Gulf.

And so Obama runs off more businesses... the ultimate act of off-shoring jobs.

You'd think eventually the man would learn that his heavy-handed, Chicago politics are actively harming this country.

Read the rest...

PresBo In Denial, Says Economy Recovering

Despite everything that shows otherwise, PresBo announced yesterday that our economy is in "recovery mode."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100629/ts_afp/useconomyobama_20100629170100

President Barack Obama, with Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke at his side, insisted the US economy was "strengthening" Tuesday despite foreboding data and a fresh stock market slump.

Obama admitted there was "great concern" about the recovery, amid increasing anxiety over indicators which may point to a slowing of the rebound, and with expectations low for the latest unemployment figures due out Friday.

"The economy is strengthening, we are into recovery," Obama said, shortly after new figures showed that consumer confidence, a key economic indicator, had tumbled in June, sending stock markets worldwide plummeting.

The man is completely divorced from reality. Instead of lying about the economy, he'd do better to change his policies away from their current economically destructive path and towards a path that would actually encourage the economy to grow.


I mean, really. How can he claim the economy is so rosy when unemployment remains high, new house sales dropped 33% recently, consumer confidence is down, and most recently, US auto makers saw a slump in auto sales? THIS is a strengthening economy?
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9GL592G0&show_article=1

When it comes to car shopping, Americans are tapping the brakes.
Forecasters think U.S. sales of cars and light trucks have slowed in June after months of improvement. It's another sign that people are beginning to doubt the economic recovery with unemployment still high.

"The two big issues with consumers right now are employment growth and income growth, and they're not seeing much of either," said George Pipas, Ford Motor Co.'s top sales analyst.

If THIS is Obama's idea of an economic recovery, I'd say he set his expectations incredibly low.

Read the rest...

Obamanomics Has Failed

Allan Meltzer, over at the Wall Street Journal, makes the case that Obamanomics has failed, and goes on to examine why.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704629804575325233508651458.html

The administration's stimulus program has failed. Growth is slow and unemployment remains high. The president, his friends and advisers talk endlessly about the circumstances they inherited as a way of avoiding responsibility for the 18 months for which they are responsible.

But they want new stimulus measures—which is convincing evidence that they too recognize that the earlier measures failed. And so the U.S. was odd-man out at the G-20 meeting over the weekend, continuing to call for more government spending in the face of European resistance.

Two overarching reasons explain the failure of Obamanomics. First, administration economists and their outside supporters neglected the longer-term costs and consequences of their actions. Second, the administration and Congress have through their deeds and words heightened uncertainty about the economic future. High uncertainty is the enemy of investment and growth.

Most of the earlier spending was a very short-term response to long-term problems. One piece financed temporary tax cuts. This was a mistake, and ignores the role of expectations in the economy. Economic theory predicts that temporary tax cuts have little effect on spending. Unless tax cuts are expected to last, consumers save the proceeds and pay down debt. Experience with past temporary tax reductions, as in the Carter and first Bush presidencies, confirms this outcome.

The bottom line is that uncertainty is the enemy of economic growth, and that Obama is actively taking steps that increase uncertainty.

Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it's harmful now.

In 1980, I had the privilege of advising Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to ignore the demands of 360 British economists who made the outrageous claim that Britain would never (yes, never) recover from her decision to reduce government spending during a severe recession. They wanted more spending. She responded with a speech promising to stay with her tight budget. She kept a sustained focus on long-term problems. Expectations about the economy's future improved, and the recovery soon began.

The economic recovery will not truly begin until Obama stops doing things that stifle businesses and increase uncertainty. In other words, until he loses his majorities and, possibly, his office.

Read the rest...

Stock Market Remains Volatile, Loses 268 Points Tues

The stock market definitely remains volatile, as shown by yesterday's dramatic drop in the Dow. During trading yesterday, the Dow was down as much as 326 points, but it closed the day with a 268 point loss. The Dow now stands at 9870.
http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/29/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm

Stocks tumbled Tuesday, with the Dow falling as much as 326 points and the S&P hitting an 8-month low after a big drop in consumer confidence and signs of a bigger slowdown in the global economy.

Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) dropped 268 points, or 2.7%, after having earlier lost as much as 326 points. The Nasdaq (COMP) composite fell 85 points, or 3.9%.

The S&P 500 (SPX) slid 33 points, or 3.1%, falling to a fresh 2010 low of 1035.18 before recovering a little to close at 1041.24. It was the lowest close since November and could bring in more selling in the next few days, according to technical market pros.

So the market remains uncertain and volatile, rising in value only to tumble back below 10k again. Yet another indicator that the economy isn't in recovery.

And why did stocks tumble THIS time?


Because of a dip in the consumer confidence index.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-consumer-confidence-plummets-on-job-worries-2010-06-29-102500?dist=countdown

U.S. consumers are increasingly worried about jobs and the economy, the Conference Board said Tuesday, as it reported that its consumer confidence index plummeted to 52.9 in June -- the lowest level since March -- from a downwardly revised 62.7 in May.

"Increasing uncertainty and apprehension about the future state of the economy and labor market, no doubt a result of the recent slowdown in job growth, are the primary reasons for the sharp reversal in confidence," said Lynn Franco, director of Conference Board's consumer research center. "Until the pace of job growth picks up, consumer confidence is not likely to pick up."

That's pretty clear. And with PresBo's anti-business policies and laws, I don't hold out much hope for substantial job growth...

Read the rest...

ObamaCare Will Put Insurers Out Of Business

If you will recall, the State of Massachusetts implemented a health care plan that was touted as the model for ObamaCare. As you will also recall, all of the regulations and limitations caused health insurance premiums to skyrocket, to the point that the health insurance commissioner denied the last round of health insurance premium increases in a desperate bid to "keep prices reasonable.

What happened next was predictable to anybody except a liberal. As a direct result of the denial for rate increases, the health insurance companies all posted losses in the first quarter of this year.
http://www.boston.com/business/ticker/2010/05/health_insurers_3.html

The state's four biggest health insurers today posted first-quarter losses totaling more than $150 million, with three of the carriers blaming the bulk of their deficit on the Patrick administration's decision to cap rate increases for individuals and small businesses.

It should be obvious to anybody, even liberals, that companies can only operate at a loss for so long before going out of business. That's a pretty self-evident fact, isn't it?


Well, the appeals board thought so, and reversed the Commissioner's earlier decision. In light of the losses, they decided that the requested premium hikes were reasonable after all... thus proving to anybody with a brain that price controls don't work worth a hill of beans.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9GICMQ80.htm

The Massachusetts Division of Insurance appeals board, in a blow to Gov. Deval Patrick, sided Thursday with a leading state insurer that has been locked in a premium dispute with his administration.

Harvard Pilgrim, the state's second-largest private insurer, had appealed an April decision by the Division of Insurance that denied 235 of 274 business premium increases proposed by the company and some of its leading competitors.

The board concluded Thursday that given the market conditions, Harvard Pilgrim "has illustrated and proved that there are valid reasons that explain and justify its differential reimbursements to providers."

Other companies, including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state's largest private insurer, are still awaiting decisions on their appeals.

The Commissioner, relying on these artificial price controls to make his state's health care system look better than it is, expressed his disappointment with the decision.

"We strongly disagree with the hearing officers' decision," said Anthony. "They've substituted their judgment for the judgment of the commissioner."

You know, that statement is completely asinine. Isn't the purpose of a review board to evaluate the decision being appealed and, if necessary, substituting their judgment for that of the Commissioner? Yeah, I thought so, too.

But here we have a clear and vibrant lesson to all you health care liberals out there. Simply declaring that premiums must remain low, as Massachusetts did and as Obama has already begun doing, accomplishes nothing other than forcing insurance companies to operate at a loss and, eventually, go out of business.

But then, wouldn't most of the liberals just love that outcome, anyway?

If ObamaCare goes the direction of Massachusetts' program, which is entirely probable because the programs are so similar, this is what we can look forward to on a national basis.

Read the rest...

Obama To Get Internet "Kill Switch"

A Senate Committee has approved a measure that would give President Obama a "kill switch" for the Internet in case of a "cyber-emergency." In other words, PresBo would have the power to turn off the Internet at any time.
http://news.techworld.com/security/3228198/obama-internet-kill-switch-plan-approved-by-us-senate/?olo=rss

A US Senate committee has approved a wide-ranging cybersecurity bill that some critics have suggested would give the US president the authority to shut down parts of the Internet during a cyberattack.

The bill, introduced earlier this month, would establish a White House Office for Cyberspace Policy and a National Center for Cybersecurity and Communications, which would work with private US companies to create cybersecurity requirements for the electrical grid, telecommunications networks and other critical infrastructure.

The bill also would allow the US president to take emergency actions to protect critical parts of the Internet, including ordering owners of critical infrastructure to implement emergency response plans, during a cyber-emergency. The president would need congressional approval to extend a national cyber-emergency beyond 120 days under an amendment to the legislation approved by the committee.

As we can see, this is another attempt to concentrate power over the private-sector into the hands of the Executive branch of our federal government.


I'm sorry, but the President has no business having that kind of power. Especially not when he doesn't even need Congressional approval to exercise it.

Notice that Congressional approval isn't needed until 120 days have passed. But if PresBo keeps the Internet shut down for 120 days (FOUR months!), then this nation would already be in a world of hurt.

No, government does not need to have control over the Internet, no matter what reasons they give. This is such an incredibly bad idea that it's really hard to know where to begin.

Read the rest...

Rumor: Wall Street Reform Heading Back To Conference Committee

If you will recall, both houses of Congress passed a version of "Wall Street Reform," and it went to the conference committee. There, a compromise was reached... and $19 billion in tax increases on banks were added to the bill.

That was fine. Until Senator Byrd passed away and Scott Brown said he couldn't support the bill with those taxes in it. Suddenly passage in the Senate looked problematical. They may not have the votes.

At this point, I'm hearing rumors from multiple sources that the bill may head BACK to the conference committee to have the $19 billion tax portion modified or eliminated.

So, let's wait and see what happens with this.


Read the rest...

Rick Barber's New Ad: Slavery!

Rick Barber has posted a new ad, this time comparing the new health care law to slavery. Watch the video yourself, and then we'll discuss it.





If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn14RwuJJRg&feature=player_embedded

Have you watched the video? Good, let's discuss it.


Right off the bat, I'll admit he's going for the controversy to help get the ad wider play. With this content, it'll be viewed on YouTube by hundreds of thousands before the election rolls around, not to mention receiving numerous replays on news stations discussing the ad.

Moving on to the message... He's not wrong. However, he's targeting the new health care law with this charge, and it actually applies to the fundamental way our welfare state operates. In other words, isn't it also slavery to be forced to work so another man can take your money and buy food? Cars? Clothes?

I've made that slavery accusation on more than one occasion, and I believe it to be true. What Barber is doing in this ad is linking his slavery accusation with the public's dislike for the health care bill. It's not a bad strategy. Whether it works or not is another question.

Tim James tried this "controversial ad" tactic during the Gubernatorial primary, and it didn't work for him. Maybe it will work for Barber...

Read the rest...

Middle-Class Tax Increases On The Way

The Democrats are caught between a rock and a hard place. You see, they were ecstatically triumphant after the 2008 elections, and immediately began implementing massive spending increases. As spending exploded, so did our national debt. So much so, that people became increasingly concerned about our excessive debt.

They've increased spending a lot, but they've also implemented quite a few tax increases... just to "pay for" their drunken spending spree. Now that they are having to pretend to actually care about the national debt, they need to increase revenue, and are looking at the middle class to do it. IN SPITE of PresBo's repeated promises to the contrary, and in spite of repeated warnings from many conservative and libertarian voices.
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/06/28/are-middle-class-tax-increases-on-the-way/

This week, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) became the first high-ranking Democrat in Congress to signal that the party might not permanently extend President George W. Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class. Hoyer wouldn't go so far as to say that tax increases were on the table but suggested that any extension of middle class tax breaks would likely be short term, perhaps as short as one year. Those tax breaks were passed during President Bush's first term and have not been renewed since; they are scheduled to expire at the end of 2010.

It has been largely assumed that the Democrat-controlled Congress would extend tax cuts for the middle class and allow those breaks for the upper class (families making more than $250,000 per year) to expire. That assumption became even more cloudy this week when Sen. Hoyer remarked that "raising revenue is part of the deficit solution." Republicans immediately zeroed in on Hoyer's comments, with Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) saying, "It's now official. Top Democrats on Capitol Hill are starting to signal their intention to raise taxes on the middle class."

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Hoyer's comments are indicative "that he supports raising taxes on the middle class to pay for more government spending."

As you can see, the Democrats want to spend a TON... and tax YOU to pay for it. YOU, not some nameless, faceless, rich guy. They're even willing to ignore PresBo's repeated promises NOT to do this, just so they can get your money.


On the "bright" side, PresBo agreed at the G20 summit to cut our deficit in half by 2013... after first ratcheting them up with more "stimulus" spending.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/27/g-20-toronto-deficit-2013_n_627157.html

"Advanced economies have committed to fiscal plans that will at least halve deficits by 2013 and stabilize or reduce government debt-to-GDP ratios by 2016," according to the statement. The gross domestic product, or GDP, measures the value of all goods and services, and is considered the best gauge of economic health.

At the same time, the statement called for following through on "existing stimulus plans," heeding Obama's concerns.

So our deficit is huge and he wants to cut it in three years. If he does so, it'll end up in the area of $600 - $800 billion... about double what it was when he took office. THIS is an austerity measure?

Look, we don't have to get our yearly DEFICIT under control, we have to get our national DEBT under control. That means we have to ELIMINATE the deficit and start paying down the debt! We're going to hit a national debt level that is 92% of GDP later this year... and that could be a danger point.

So Democrats will joyfully keep spending on every extreme liberal program they want, keep those spending levels high, and demand that YOU... that WE pay for it all. Keep in mind that the more we let them spend, the higher they will raise taxes to "pay for it."

It's time to stop "finding ways to pay for spending" and to start CUTTING SPENDING! This debt crisis was caused by too much spending. Slashing that spending HAS to be a central part of the solution.

Read the rest...

Dems Delusional On Economy

Here is some solid evidence that Democrats are delusional about the economy... they HAVE to be, if they want to keep their majorities in November. Listen to Rep Jim Moran (D-VA) try to tell us that the economy "has recovered."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/26/dem_congressman_the_economy_has_recovered.html

Meanwhile, the growth estimate for the first quarter, which was estimated at the time to be 3% growth, was downgraded to 2.7%.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68476

The government lowered its estimate of how much the economy grew in the first quarter of the year, noting that consumers spent less than it previously thought.

Gross domestic product rose by 2.7 percent in the January-to-March period, the Commerce Department said Friday. That was less than the 3 percent estimate for the quarter that the government released last month. It was also much slower than the 5.6 percent pace in the previous quarter.

And there are other, MANY other, signs of economic troubles INCREASING in the near future.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/7857595/RBS-tells-clients-to-prepare-for-monster-money-printing-by-the-Federal-Reserve.html

The ECRI leading indicator produced by the Economic Cycle Research Institute plummeted yet again last week to -6.9, pointing to contraction in the US by the end of the year. It is dropping faster that at any time in the post-War era.

The latest data from the CPB Netherlands Bureau shows that world trade slid 1.7pc in May, with the biggest fall in Asia. The Baltic Dry Index measuring freight rates on bulk goods has dropped 40pc in a month. This is a volatile index that can be distorted by the supply of new ships, but those who watch it as an early warning signal for China and commodities are nervous.

It's a huge gamble to proclaim that the economy "HAS RECOVERED" when there is a real possibility things will get worse. It tends to illustrate how out of touch you are...

Read the rest...

VP Biden Insults Those Who Want Tax Cuts

If you'll remember all the way back to Saturday, I wrote about Joe Biden saying that there is "no possibility" that the US can regain the 8 million jobs we lost. Why did he say that? Because the government tried and failed, and Biden doesn't believe that the private sector can accomplish anything the government can't.

Now we get this little episode. Biden walks into a frozen custard shop in Wisconsin, has some custard, and asks the manager how much he owes them. When the manager says, "It's on the house. Lower our taxes and we'll call it even." Biden walked away, but later went back and told the manager "Why don't you say something nice instead of being a smart-@ss all the time?"

So if you want lower taxes, you're a smart-@ss.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/06/joe-biden-calls-wisconsin-voter-a-smartss-for-requesting-lower-taxes.html

Everyone could get a charge of out that, saying that was Joe Biden just being Joe Biden. But this one’s different. Telling a voter he’s a "smartass" for requesting lower taxes is something the Republicans can and will use.

One thing’s for sure: The term has just entered the 2010 official election lexicon.

If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NO13_tJ6x44&feature=player_embeddedabout:Tabs


So that's the viewpoint of our second-in-command. Our country is doomed and cannot recreate jobs that it did, in fact, originally create. And if you want lower taxes, you're not only "not saying anything nice," you're also a smart-@ss.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is how our Federal government views us. We're useful idiots... as long as we earn money and pay taxes. Otherwise, we need to shut up, sit down, and let "our betters" get on with the business of running this country.

Yeah... into the ground.

Oh, and for the record?

I AM A SMART-@SS, TOO!!!!!

Read the rest...

Breaking: Senator Byrd (D-WV) Dies At Age 92

The second-longest serving Senator in Congress, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), died Monday morning around 3:00 AM. My condolences to his family and friends.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37959947/ns/politics-capitol_hill?GT1=43001

Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, a fiery orator versed in the classics and a hard-charging power broker who steered billions of federal dollars to the state of his Depression-era upbringing, died Monday. He was 92.

A spokesman for the family, Jesse Jacobs, said Byrd died peacefully at about 3 a.m. at Inova Hospital in Fairfax, Va. He had been in the hospital since late last week.

At first Byrd was believed to be suffering from heat exhaustion and severe dehydration, but other medical conditions developed. He had been in frail health for several years.

Byrd, a Democrat, was the longest-serving senator in history, holding his seat for more than 50 years. He was the Senate's majority leader for six of those years and was third in the line of succession to the presidency, behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

And unfortunate as it sounds, there may be a problem with picking a successor.


Apparently the election law isn't clear enough on the issue...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/39092.html

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin, a Democrat, has the power to appoint a successor to Byrd – but, because Byrd died at the beginning of this week and not the end, it’s not entirely clear whether that person will be a short-timer in the Senate or serve more than two years.

Under West Virginia election law, Manchin surely would have been able to appoint someone to fill the entire remainder of Byrd’s term had Byrd died after July 3 – or with less than 30 months left to go on a term that expires Jan. 3, 2013. But with more than 30 months left of an “unexpired term,” the law stipulates that he tap an interim successor until an election can be held.

That law, however, isn’t clear on two points within the construct: First, the law is silent on when, exactly, a vacancy occurs – at the time of death, when the Senate informs the state or when the governor declares it? – and the law for calling a special election is written in a way that suggests that it couldn't be held until the date of the next regularly scheduled election in 2012.

I have no doubts that the Secretary of State, working with their Attorney General, will be able to figure this out shortly, but right now the law is a little unclear.

We'll find out, though.

Read the rest...

Poll: Agree Or Disagree With SCOTUS?

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) just handed down a decision on the McDonald v Chicago case, in which they decided that the Second Amendment applies to the states, and that the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was self-defense.

Do you agree or disagree with this ruling?






Read the rest...

Breaking: SCOTUS Says 2nd Amendment Applies To States!

As expected, the US Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment applies to states. You can find the complete ruling here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Two years ago, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U. S. ___ (2008), we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and we struck down a District of Columbia law that banned the possession of handguns in the home.The city of Chicago (City) and the village of Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, have laws that are similar to the District of Columbia’s, but Chicago and Oak Park argue that their laws are constitutional because the Second Amendment has no application to the States. We have previously held that most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights apply with full force to both the Federal Government and the States. Applying the standard that is well established in our case law, we hold that the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States.

So that's it, SCOTUS has spoken, and now states and cities with highly restrictive gun bans have been placed on notice. The Chicago gun ban was not overturned. However, the case was remanded back to the 7th Circuit Court.

In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. See Duncan, 391 U. S., at 149, and n. 14. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller. The judgment of the Opinion of the Court and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

The majority decision was authored by Alito, and concurring were Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts. Dissenting were Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Sotomayer. That's a fairly predictable split of opinions.

This decision puts overly restrictive gun laws on notice, but doesn't specifically state what "overly restrictive" IS. As with Heller, they reiterated that laws restricting access to felons or prohibiting the carrying of weapons into schools or municipal buildings are more or less safe. But they did NOT deal with several categories of other restrictive laws.

Which means, of course, that the age of litigating gun laws begins today. Since the court ruled that the fundamental reason for the Second Amendment was self-defense, laws mandating placing unloaded guns with gun locks in locked gun safes will be vulnerable to challenge and overturn. Anything that unreasonably restricts access to guns for the purpose of self-defense is open to challenge.

And that's a good thing.

UPDATE: Here's the first news article that I've found dealing with the decision. It's pretty bare bones... but it will take a while for in-depth analyses to be performed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/06/28/supremecourt/main6626538.shtml

Read the rest...

Counterpunch #16: Does BP Deserve An Apology?

Welcome to Counterpunch! Episode #16. Today's topic: Does BP deserve an apology?

I argue that an apology is due where any entity has been harmed or wronged, and that the $20 billion extortion fund qualifies, as does the government's refusal to admit their own culpability in the affair. Sherry Walker, of Left In Alabama, uses sarcasm to argue that no apology is due at all.

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=7ZgtHHF39Zs

Let us know what you think of the Counterpunch feature.





Here is transcript of my position:


Well, that depends on what they’re being apologized to for, now doesn’t it? Keep in mind, one can be guilty of a crime and still become a victim of over-zealous or overly-political law enforcement.

Should BP receive an apology for shouldering the blame on the oil leak? No, not at all. Their rig, their responsibility.

How about an apology for taking $20 billion from them, AT LEAST, with the understanding that they can still be sued by anyone who wants to? Yeah, that qualifies. The fund doesn’t satisfy any legal obligations the company experiences, all it does is give the government money to hand out to whomever they wish… like the strippers who want money because of lost business from their mostly fisherman clientele.

How about an apology from the government for not acknowledging their own role in the problem? Again, sounds reasonable. We discovered recently that the GOVERNMENT produced a document that vastly underestimated the dangers of a deepwater oil leak, and REQUIRED the oil companies to comply with the report when developing their response plans. Doesn’t the government deserve some blame for forcing oil companies to under-prepare? Yeah, they do. So they should apologize to BP for doing that.

Now, BP has and deserves to have primary responsibility and liability for the spill. But government is denying their own role and taking money from BP while they’re still trying to get things under control. For those things, an apology would not be entirely out of order.

For Politics Alabama, I am Matthew Givens

Read the rest...

Biden Doubts US Recovery

I was unable to come up with a title for this one that exactly captured what Vice President Biden said. What I ended up with is close, but let's look at what happened.

VP Biden believes that although PresBo's stimulus program has "saved or created" 2.8 million jobs, "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession." He also said there was "no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20008924-503544.html

Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

Appearing at a fundraiser with Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in Milwaukee, the vice president remarked that by the time he and President Obama took office in 2008, the gross domestic product had shrunk and hundreds of thousands of jobs had been lost.

"We inherited a godawful mess," he said, adding there was "no way to regenerate $3 trillion that was lost. Not misplaced, lost."

There speaks a man who has no faith in the free market economy that has been responsible for our prosperity, not to mention a man who is running into the brick wall of reality on government-created economic growth.


The fact is that our private sector is very good at creating new jobs and growth IF the government can resist the temptation to meddle and try to control them. Another fact: government CANNOT create economic growth, jobs, and prosperity, because every dime it spends has to be paid for by taking money away from taxpayers... the private sector.

But I find his pessimism revealing. It reveals a complete lack of faith and trust in what has made America great. It conveys a complete lack of understanding of how the real world works. For although these comments show that he NOW doubts government can create economic growth and prosperity, he hasn't made the leap to believe that the private sector CAN... if allowed to do so.

Piling taxes and new regulations on businesses won't do the trick. I've said this time and time again: If we make it easier and less expensive to do business, we will get more people wanting to do business!

So. Hat's off to the Vice-Presidential doubter of our nation.

I believe we CAN regain economic strength and momentum again. But we need government to back off its "control everything" agenda. We need government to stop trying to double spending every year and start trying to reduce spending and pay down the national debt. We need government to repeal taxes, roll back overly burdensome regulations (like this one... oil spill regulations for spilled MILK!), and let businesses grow and evolve naturally.

Read the rest...

OpEd: Big Government Dying In The Gulf

I read a very well-written op-ed piece today over at the Washington Examiner. Mark Tapscott write that he believes the Gulf oil crisis is killing the progressive concept of big government taking care of everyone and everything.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columns/Big-Government-is-dying-in-the-Gulf-oil-spill-96985504.html

It's not just millions of gallons of black gold spilling into the Gulf of Mexico that are being lost. Also disappearing into watery despair are the last shreds of credibility for progressive Big Government.

It's Day 65 of the Deepwater Horizon spill and the only hope of stopping the flow of thick, gooey crude remains the relief well being drilled by the private sector.

None of the ass-kicking political speeches by President Obama, bureaucratic edicts by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar or EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, or hypocritical posturing for the cameras in Congress has plugged the hole to stop the flow of suffocating oil headed to the beaches.

We see this week a remarkable confluence of events signaling the eventual end of Big Government: The bureaucrats and politicians can spend trillions but they can't plug the Gulf oil spill, agree on a budget in Congress or end the Great Recession's foreclosures and unemployment.

This is a very good read, and I recommend it to you.

Now it's Big Government that needs a bailout because its progressive politicians and bureaucrats can't stop doing what they've always done -- spending more, taxing more, regulating more, grabbing more power for themselves and their special interest buddies.

The result is that by trying to do everything for everybody, Big Government steadily loses the capacity to do anything for anybody. Thus, the oil keeps spilling into the Gulf as the politicians speechify, the bureaucrats issue new orders and the congressmen posture.

This is why, as just as most Americans long ago stopped trusting Detroit to build the world's best cars, today we no longer believe the grand promises that more massive, wasteful government will bring prosperity and good health for our families, security in our old age and a better life for our kids. We see the Gulf.

Wonderful piece. And I can't find much to fault in his logic, either.

Read the rest...

Roby v Barber Debate On July 1st

If you live in or around the Montgomery area, there will be a debate between Martha Roby and Rick Barber on Thursday, July 1, from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The debate will be held on the campus of Huntingdon College in Flowers Hall.

You can find out more details by looking at the calendar of events:
http://calendar.huntingdon.edu/default/d01/07/2010?display=M&style=B&positioning=A

So if you want to hear a little from your choices in the July runoff election to select the GOP candidate for Congressional District 5, here's your chance.


Read the rest...

Judge Affirms Restraining Order On Drilling Ban

If you will recall, earlier this week a Federal Court judge issued a restraining order on Obama's six-month ban for deep water drilling in the Gulf. I wrote about the original order, Obama's intention to ignore it, and when the plaintiffs filed to stop Salazar from just issuing a new ban.

That hearing was held yesterday via telephone, and oral arguments were not heard. Judge Martin Feldman refused to delay the implementation of his restraining order, and ordered the government to comply. The DOJ says notices have gone out to the drilling companies affected by it.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Gulf-Oil-Spill/2010/06/24/id/363012

A federal judge who overturned a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling imposed after Gulf oil spill refused Thursday to put his ruling on hold while the government appeals.

The Justice Department had asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman to delay his ruling until the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans can review it. Feldman rejected that request Thursday.

The Justice Department said in court papers that Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has instructed all employees not to enforce the moratorium. Rig operators are getting letters that say suspension notices they received have no legal effect right now.

No word on whether Feldman dealt with the issue of a new ban being issued by Salazar... as he has already threatened to do.

For the record, the judge was correct in his ruling. Banning everything because of troubles on one rig assumes facts not in evidence and punishes the other rigs for no reason.

By the way, the whole concept of asking the Judge to delay his restraining order was stupid in the first place. The restraining order was issued as immediate relief for the drilling companies. If IMMEDIATE relief hadn't been required, he wouldn't have issued the order in the first place. Asking him to delay his original order was, in effect, asking him to admit error.

So it wasn't going to happen.

Now, if Salazar has specific information about problems on individual rigs, now is the time to put it together and start issuing orders for safety reviews on those rigs. But the orders will have to be backed by data showing that the rigs being shut down have problems... something the original, all-inclusive report lacked.

Read the rest...

BP Relied On Faulty Government Data

We're just now discovering that the US Mineral Management Services, who are responsible for regulating offshore oil drilling platforms, produced an "official" document containing data on what could happen with an oil spill. We're also learning that his report was dead wrong on the expected severity of oil spills.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703900004575325131111637728.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5

BP PLC and other big oil companies based their plans for responding to a big oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico on U.S. government projections that gave very low odds of oil hitting shore, even in the case of a spill much larger than the current one.

The government models, which oil companies are required to use but have not been updated since 2004, assumed that most of the oil would rapidly evaporate or get broken up by waves or weather. In the weeks since the Deepwater Horizon caught fire and sank, real life has proven these models, prepared by the Interior Department's Mineral Management Service, wrong.

As the article clearly states, the oil companies were REQUIRED to use the government projections when formulating their own disaster reaction plans. REQUIRED. But now that the disaster has hit, BP is being held SOLELY responsible for the damages. We can sue BP, but we can't sue the government, even though they share some of the responsibility, here.


Don't get me wrong, BP should be liable for the damages. Their rig, their spill, their liability. But the government regulated them and forced them to do things certain ways, and that creates a partial liability on the part of the US government.

And this, in my opinion, is the fundamental problem with government regulating private businesses. When the GOVERNMENT makes a mistake, the regulated company pays for it. And that's wrong.

Another failure of government regulation is the $75 million liability cap. Without that law, there would be no questions about ultimate liability. But our government decided, in its infinite wisdom, that they'd add that little regulation into the books.

So now we have TWO aspects of government regulation that have combined to make a bad situation even worse than it had to be.

Read the rest...

The Truth About Campaign Finance Reform

A Democrat Congressman, Rep Hank Johnson (D-GA) has accidentally let slip the real reason why "campaign finance reform" is necessary. On the floor of the House, he told the world why Congress MUST restrict the ability of corporations to participate in political campaigns. And what WAS that reason? Because if they DON'T pass the DISCLOSE Act, if they DON'T place such limits, "we will see more Republicans getting elected."

Yes, that would be a nightmare for Democrats.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/24/dem_congressman_we_must_have_campaign_finance_disclosure_to_stop_republicans_from_getting_elected.html

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) says "we will see more Republicans getting elected" if the Congress does not pass campaign finance disclosure reform.

But here's my question...


Is the fact that passing a law would help Democrats maintain their majorities in Congress sufficient reason to pass that law? Personally, I don't think so... and yes, I would apply the exact same standard in reverse. Republicans aren't saints, either.

So now you know the REAL reason why Democrats are so hot to get that DISCLOSE Act passed. Are you still in favor of it?

Read the rest...

Businesses: Obama Policies Stifle Growth

According to a variety of business leaders, representing companies both large and small, Obama's policies are creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/22/AR2010062205279.html

The chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of top corporate executives that has been President Obama's closest ally in the business community, accused the president and Democratic lawmakers Tuesday of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."

Ivan G. Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon Communications, said that Democrats in Washington are pursuing tax increases, policy changes and regulatory actions that together threaten to dampen economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."

Does this surprise anybody?


If you've actually been following Obama's policies towards businesses, you should treat this as obvious. Yes, Obama's policies are "bad for business." His ideological bent seems to regard them as cash cows that can be milked for tax revenue but otherwise are subject to regulations and control by the government.

In fact, judging how Obama treated auto companies, he wouldn't mind just nationalizing businesses entirely!

Read the rest...

New Home Sales Fall 33% In May

According to the most recent information, people suddenly don't want to buy new homes anymore. The May figures showed that new home sales plummeted by 33% in May to reach its lowest level on record.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37867779/ns/business-real_estate

Sales of new homes collapsed in May, sinking 33 percent to the lowest level on record as potential buyers stopped shopping for homes once they could no longer receive government tax credits.

The bleak report from the Commerce Department on Wednesday is the latest sign of a precarious housing market that is struggling to recover and could weaken the broader economic recovery. It follows a disappointing report issued earlier in the week showing sales of previously occupied homes had dipped in May.

And what caused this sudden and dramatic dip in home sales? Why, the Federal tax credits expired, and people aren't getting paid $8,000 of taxpayer money to buy a new home.

Analysts linked the sudden drop in new-home sales to the expiration of federal tax credits of up to $8,000. But double-digit unemployment and slow job growth have also weighed on the market, even with mortgage rates at near-historic lows.

"We fear that the appetite to buy a home has disappeared alongside the tax credit," Paul Dales, U.S. economist with Capital Economics," wrote in a note to clients. "After all, unemployment remains high, job security is low and credit conditions are tight."

What happened with home sales is the same thing we saw happen with cash for clunkers. People who would be in the market for a car sometime in the near future took advantage of the government money to buy then... thus the program created few car sales, instead displacing those from the near future to become immediate sales. Once the program ended, car sales dropped flat for a few months.

And the same thing is liable to happen here. The drop in new home sales was so extreme because of the same effect. The incentives inspired people to buy homes who otherwise would have bought them in May or June. The government paid up to $8,000 in tax credits, thus artificially inflating home sales figures in April, for example. So the market is in for a period of flat sales.

Government subsidies or tax credits don't create economic activity, and they don't give a real boost to the economy. As we can see, the April high is balanced by the May low. All they really do is waste money and ratchet up the national debt.

Read the rest...

Frank: No Such Thing As"Too Much" Regulation

Rep Barney Frank, who to me always sounds like Elmer Fudd when he talks, now says that it is not possible to over-regulate, and calls such fears "a fantasy unrelated to any human experience." His exact words were:

"The general fear that the banking members, that we're going to over regulate on behalf of consumers is a fantasy unrelated to any human experience. The federal government has never done that."

You can find the video at the following link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/22/barney_frank_idea_that_there_is_too_much_regulation_is_a_fantasy_unrelated_to_human_experience.html

Now, I hope you understood what he is saying.


He is saying that NEVER, in all of human experience throughout time, have we seen a situation where government has over-regulated. In his mind, the total control over everything exercised by the Soviets was fine. Chavez seizing oil companies assets... fine. He is saying that is it impossible for there to be too much regulation.

And that's a major problem. Do you want to know why government keeps getting bigger and infringing on more and more aspects of our private lives? Because of people like Barney Frank in positions of power.

And of course, those of us who disagree with him are delusional, I suppose.

Better my convictions that Barney Frank's delusions.

Read the rest...

More On Obama Ignoring Court Ruling On Drilling Ban

Yesterday, I wrote that PresBo was set to completely ignore the temporary injunction that drilling companies won against the deep water drilling ban. Apparently, I wasn't the only one who noticed... the drilling companies are requesting an emergency hearing before the same judge, alleging the administration is about to ignore his ruling.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0610/Obama_accused_of_defying_court_on_drilling_ban.html

Drilling companies and others who won an order from a federal judge Tuesday lifting the Obama Administration's moratorium on deepwater oil drilling are accusing the administration of defying the court's order by announcing plans to reimpose the moratorium.

Moratorium opponents filed papers in a New Orleans federal court Wednesday afternoon requesting an emergency hearing before Judge Martin Feldman, who entered the order blocking the moratorium. Since that time, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar indicated both in a statement and Congressional testimony that he plans to re-impose the moratorium soon based on information that wasn't fully developed when the six-month drilling ban was imposed in late May.

They claim that re-issuing the ban is an attempt to make an end-run around the court's ruling.

From the companies' brief, filed before the government appealed Wednesday evening:

While Defendants have the right to challenge this Court’s Preliminary Injunction Order on appeal...and further have the right to engage in appropriate fact finding, data analysis and risk assessment followed perhaps by additional agency action, the law precludes Defendants from continuing today to enforce the Moratorium in defiance of this Court’s prohibition against its enforcement. At present, Defendants have not filed a Notice of Appeal to the Fifth Circuit, nor have they filed a motion with this Court seeking a stay of the Preliminary Injunction Order pending appeal. Accordingly, the Preliminary Injunction Order is in full force and effect, and is the law of this case. Nevertheless, Defendants have chosen to ignore and disobey it. Secretary Salazar’s comments have the obvious effect of chilling the resumption of OCS activities, which is precisely the wrong this Court sought to redress through its Preliminary Injunction Order.

The "chilling" reference seems to be a suggestion that the talk of reimposing the moratorium is essentially the same as doing so since companies aren't knowingly going to staff up drilling rigs that are likely to be shut down again in a matter of days.

A Justice Department official said a court hearing on the issue is expected Thursday.

I believe they have a point. In fact, an editorial in the Washington Examiner questions whether Obama ever bothers to listen to ANYBODY.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Will-Obama-listen-to-anybody_-96985499.html

Even more disturbing is Obama's response to Feldman, which was to promise both an appeal in court and issuance of a new drilling moratorium from Interior. In other words, Obama is forging ahead with the very policy the judge just ruled unconstitutional. And the chief executive is challenging the thousands of Gulf Coast oil industry employees to try and stop him in the appeals court. This response is the latest evidence of a disconcerting pattern with this president and his cronies in the executive branch and Congress: Their "progressive" ideological agenda comes first; everything else, including the will of the people and the letter of the law, is at most an obstacle on the road to "change we can believe in."

Think about it: Large and growing majorities opposed Obamacare in public opinion survey after survey, yet Obama and his congressional allies wrote the bill behind closed doors, made multiple corrupt bargains to gain votes, and passed it anyway. When General Motors bondholders opposed Obama's takeover, he flouted age-old bankruptcy law while effectively nationalizing the automaker and handing it over to the United Auto Workers union. When auto executives expressed concern about Obama's costly increase in fuel economy standards, his chief environmental adviser warned them not to "write anything down" about their discussion.

I think this is a valid question. Obama has surrounded himself with people who share his opinions. We need look no further than General McChrystal to see what happens when somebody offers a dissenting opinion. As Obama himself said in his public announcement that placed General Petraeus in charge, he will tolerate no division in his administration.

Which means he has an entire administration full of Yes-men, telling him what he wants to hear instead of, for example, the truth. A President doesn't need people telling him what he already thinks, he needs people giving him contrary advice. Why? Because nobody is always right, and contrary advice is OFTEN important. Whether the contrary advice is correct or not isn't the issue. The mere suggestion sparks thinking in new directions. And thinking a problem all the way through, INCLUDING options that are at odds with his own positions, is a good way for the President to make sure that his final course of action is the correct one.

But when offered any contrary advice, when facing what he terms "division," Obama kicks out the offending member of his staff.




Read the rest...

GOP Gubernatorial Debate On Friday

On Friday night, June 25, the Young Republican Federation of Alabama will host a GOP gubernatorial debate between Bradley Byrne and Robert Bentley. The debate is sponsored by the Student Government Associations of the University of Alabama and Auburn University and will be brought to you live by Al.com and WAPI 100.5 FM.

The debate will begin at 8:30 pm and run until 10:00 pm. It will be held at:

Cahaba Grand Conference Center
3660 Grandview Parkway
Birmingham, AL 35243

The format of the debate will allow each candidate two minutes for opening and closing statements. Questions will be asked from a panel of four. The debate will be moderated by Jon Paepcke of NBC13, and the panel will consist of:

- Lee Davis, Host of the Lee Davis Show, The Source 101.1FM
- Richard Dixon, Host of the Richard Dixon Show, WAPI 100FM
- Ryan Jones, Vice- Chairman, Young Republican Federation of Alabama
- James Fowler, Chairman, SGA, University of Alabama
- Kurt Sasser, Chairman, SGA, Auburn University

The news website www.AL.com is supposed to carry live coverage, and WAPI 100.5 FM and 1070 AM will carry the debate live.

So if you want to learn about Bentley and Byrne, this will be a very good debate to follow.

Read the rest...

Wednesday News Roundup

Here are some stories that I think are important enough for you to be aware of... maybe even read. (grin)


US On Slippery Slope To Tyranny
Thomas Sowell makes the point that PresBo makes a habit of ignoring the law and doing what he wants, which puts us on the slippery slope to tyranny.

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation? Nowhere. And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/537967/201006211813/Is-US-Now-On-Slippery-Slope-To-Tyranny-.aspx

President declares war... on Arizona!
From the stealth lawsuit vs Arizona that was announced in a foreign country to the Presidential comments revealed by Senator Kyl, PresBo reserves his most warlike actions for Arizona.

The Obama administration has a lot of fights on its hands. Putting aside real wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there's the battle against leaking oil in the Gulf, the struggle against 9.7 percent unemployment across the country, and clashes over the president's agenda on Capitol Hill. Despite all that, the White House has found time to issue a new declaration of war, this time against an unlikely enemy: the state of Arizona.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Amid-crises_-Obama-declares-war----on-Arizona-96839529.html

US spends money in eye-opening ways
You won't believe it, I'm sure.

The National Institutes of Health has spent over $2 million on a study that, among other things, seeks to increase condom use among intravenous drug users in Kazakhstan.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/68156

PresBo admitted border trade-off years ago
PresBo denies Kyl's account, and says he never said he would hold border security hostage for comprehensive immigration reform. But when you look back in time, you find him saying things remarkably similar to that...

Obama comments that the "system" is "unfair" for a lot of people and says there would need to be a way to secure the borders, track individuals coming into the U.S. "who may be engaged in terrorist activity" and "provide a pathway" for citizenship.

"That's going to be a difficult conversation to have and it's going to have to be bipartisan," he said. "The tradeoff is going to have to be improved security of our borders at the same allowing those who are already here to reach out for that American dream," he said.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=169809

Obama urging illegals to rat out their employers
Why? Because "Every worker in America has a right to be paid fairly – whether documented or not."

The Obama administration is encouraging illegal aliens to call its new hotline and rat out U.S. employers because they "work hard and have the right to be paid fairly." Labor Secretary Hilda Solis is personally asking illegals to snitch on bosses if their paychecks aren't large enough.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=169585

Democrats propose new budget cuts
Democrats want to appear like they are budget-conscious, so they are proposing new budget cuts. How much? They want to spend about $7 billion less than PresBo requested. Woo-hoo!

A draft budget enforcement resolution—designed to placate Blue Dog moderates—would cap next year’s appropriations near $1.121 trillion, about $7 billion below Obama’s requests or $3 billion less than the Senate Budget Committee proposed this spring.

At the same time, $10 billion in new school aid would be added to a pending war funding bill but offset through a combination of rescissions from past appropriations and new legislative savings, primarily at the expense of the drug industry.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38891.html

I hope you found these articles informative and interesting.

Read the rest...

McChrystal Out, Petraeus In

After a 30-minute meeting today, PresBo announced that he has "accepted the resignation" of General McChrystal and appointed in his place General Petraeus to lead the troops in Afghanistan.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/105021-reports-mcchrystal-out-

President Barack Obama said Wednesday that he had accepted Gen. Stanley McChrystal's resignation as commander of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, The Hill has confirmed.

Obama has selected Gen. David Petraeus to replace McChrystal.

Watch CBS News Videos Online


If the player doesn't work, try this link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6610940n

This is strange for two reasons.


First, prior to the meeting, McChrystal and the Pentagon both denied that McChrystal had submitted his resignation. Then he suddenly resigned... we're told. So although the "official" story for the history books is that the General resigned, in reality he was fired from his job. I'm telling you, this President and this administration do NOT deal well with dissent.

Granted, McChrystal was out of line for his comments... top military brass are supposed to be apolitical. And he wasn't. So he deserved some form of punishment. But with everybody from the troops all the way up to higher-ups in Afghanistan saying they wanted McChrystal to remain in charge, this is something of a surprise. But like I said, you don't cross THIS President... the vindictiveness level is pretty high.

Second, the selection of a replacement General is puzzling. I remember General Petraeus from when Bush was President. And I also remember what the liberals called him then. They called him "General Betray Us." Now, suddenly, he's a great guy and the right General just because PresBo is in charge? This I do not understand.

So that's what is happening, and those are the aspects that I find interesting and puzzling.

Read the rest...

Federal Government Halts Sand Berm Dredging

Although PresBo CLAIMS that he is working hard to ensure that the leak is capped and that the oil spill is cleaned up, in reality the Federal government has obstructed such efforts numerous times. They turned down offers of foreign ships to help with the cleanup. They refused to give the Governor of Florida permission to build sand berms that would keep the oil from landing on beaches. And now that construction of those berms is underway, the Federal government has ordered work on them to stop for... get this: environmental concerns.

Like millions of gallons of oil landing on our beaches isn't an environmental concern?
http://www.wdsu.com/news/23997498/detail.html

The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.

The berms are meant to protect the Louisiana coastline from oil. But the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department has concerns about where the dredging is being done.

"Once again, our government resource agencies, which are intended to protect us, are now leaving us vulnerable to the destruction of our coastline and marshes by the impending oil," [Plaquemines Parish President Billy] Nungesser wrote to Obama. "Furthermore, with the threat of hurricanes or tropical storms, we are being put at an increased risk for devastation to our area from the intrusion of oil.

So the Federal government has halted the oil cleanup efforts in that area because of environmental concerns!


No offense intended with this question, but are they even bothering to think in the White House these days? Or are they just mesmerized by the jerking motion of the left knee?

The dredging operation will help keep the oil off the coast. Maybe shutting it down for a week while they relocate the equipment isn't the best idea at this time.

MAYBE???

So next time PresBo talks about how dedicated he is to fixing the oil spill, remember this incident.

Read the rest...

Obama To Ignore Judge On Drilling Ban

So, PresBo's initial reaction to the judge's ruling was predictable and understandable. He said they would appeal the ruling. It's the SECOND reaction to the ruling that I find despicable... as well as typical of this administration's disdain for the rule of law. Interior Secretary Salazar says he's going to re-issue the drilling ban.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37841204/ns/disaster_in_the_gulf

On Tuesday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said he will issue a new order imposing a moratorium on deepwater drilling after a federal judge struck down the existing one.

Salazar said in a statement that the new order will contain additional information making clear why the six-month drilling pause was necessary in the wake of the Gulf oil spill. The judge in New Orleans who struck down the moratorium earlier in the day complained there wasn't enough justification for it.

They're going to re-issue the SAME ban, but provide additional reasons. There are two ways to look at this position.


First, that the administration does in fact have additional information that they didn't include in their report. So, why wasn't it in the report? Are they too stupid to know how to write the report and subsequent ban, or are they just incompetent?

Second, there may BE no new information, and they will simply change the wording of the report. And re-issue the ban, forcing the oil companies to take it BACK to court.

In effect, ignoring the original temporary stay issued by the judge.

Personally, if Salazar does this, I'd like to see the judge cite him for contempt of court... but it won't happen.

The problem is that there were more problems with the report than inadequate factual basis for the ban. For example, the preliminary report was reviewed and approved by 15 experts, but was later changed to add conclusions and recommendations that those experts do NOT agree with. And no matter what new facts Salazar cobbles together, it doesn't change the fact that eight of their 15 experts DO NOT AGREE WITH THE DRILLING BAN!

And does anybody else see the resemblance? I'm talking about how, when PresBo does something like this drilling ban and gets stopped by something like this temporary restraining order... watch the reaction of him and his administration. Doesn't it remind you a little bit of how an 8-year-old acts when things don't go the way he wants them to?

There is a bit of similarity in their reactions, I think. Do you agree?

Read the rest...

Election Results

Well, we knew that Bennett was out, because he didn't make his primary runoff. But Rep Inglis DID make the runoff... and was soundly defeated by his challenger.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jamie-dupree-washington-insider/2010/06/23/one-more-down/

As expected, Tuesday night's election results brought down another sitting member of Congress, as Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC) became the third member of the House, along with two Senators, to be booted in this election year.

While very few people in Washington really thought Inglis would win, the depth of his defeat was frankly stunning, as Inglis lost 71-29%. That's not a typo. A sitting member of Congress can't get one out of three votes from a district where he was re-elected less than two years ago.

Don't you just LOVE the sound of an incumbent biting the dust? Oh, and Scott and Haley won, too.

Scott will also be the favorite in November. Backed by some tea party activists, Scott would be the first black Republican in the Congress since Rep. J.C. Watts (R-OK) left the House after the 2002 elections.

The irony of a black man with strong Tea Party support defeating a Thurmond is frankly, just crazy, considering the history of that state. South Carolina has not had a black Republican Congressman in more than a century - probably back to Reconstruction.

Finally, we should also note the size of the win in the South Carolina Governor's runoff on the GOP side, as Nikki Haley defeated another GOP Congressman, Rep. Gresham Barrett, 65-35%.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Court Ends Obama's Ban On "Deepwater Drilling"

After the BP oil spill had drug on for a while and PresBo was starting to experience some rather heavy political blow-back, he decided to issue a six month ban on all deep water drilling in the gulf. This decision was based upon the same mistaken supposition that makes people want to ground ALL planes of one type because one crashed. Do we recall all cars because one fails? Close all restaurants because one caused food poisoning? No.

But the ban slammed into place, and the economic pain began to be felt. PresBo made the ridiculous threat that BP should pay for lost wages because of the government's ban.

But some of the now-idled drilling companies filed an emergency court suit asking for a temporary injunction of the drilling ban... and today they won. The court issued a temporary restraining order against the federal government enforcing it's drilling ban. Not surprisingly, the administration slammed the ruling and announced its intention to immediately appeal the decision.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38855.html

The Obama administration plans to immediately appeal a New Orleans federal judge’s decision Tuesday to block President Barack Obama’s six-month moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said.

"We will immediately appeal to the 5th Circuit,” Gibbs said. “The president strongly believes as the Department of Interior and the Department of Justice argued yesterday that continuing to drill at these depths without knowing what happened does not make any sense and puts the safety of those involved – potentially puts the safety of those on the rigs and safety of the environment in the Gulf at a danger that the president does not believe we cannot afford right now.”

If you're interested, as most of the news articles on this subject don't seem to be, since they don't contain the information, the court found that the decision to ban deep water drilling was "arbitrary and capricious" and imposed "irreparable harm" on the oil companies involved.

You can read the entire decision here:
http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/GENERAL/Notices/10-1663_doc67.pdf

This Court is persuaded that the public interest weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction. While a suspension of activities directed after a rational interpretation of the evidence could outweigh the impact on the plaintiffs and the public, here, the Court has found the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing that the agency’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country.

There's a lot of good reading in the decision, should you decide (as I did) to read the whole thing. And I urge you to READ the decision before criticizing it and calling it a bad one. The court decision made sense to me.

Read the rest...

Health Insurance Costs Rising, Obama Mad

Okay, it looks like health insurance costs are rising again, supposedly due to rising MEDICAL costs.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37829862/ns/health-health_care/

People who buy their own health insurance report the most recent rate increase requests have averaged 20 percent, according to the survey released Monday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. (KHN is a part of the foundation.)

The foundation surveyed just over 1,000 people who don't get insurance from their employer, finding that 77 percent reported an increase with their current or previous insurer. Most paid the increase. But 16 percent switched to less expensive plans, either to one offered by their insurer or to one from a different insurer. As a result of those who switched, the average increase for all respondents was 13 percent.

“We’re seeing price increases of 40 percent to 50 percent from some hospitals across the country,” says AHIP spokesman Robert Zirkelbach. “Data show that premium increases are being driven by the soaring cost of medical care and younger, healthier people choosing to drop their coverage during an economic slowdown.”

And PresBo, though even under ObamaCare he has no legal authority to control or regulate health insurance rates, is threatening insurance companies not to raise their rates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/health/policy/22health.html?ref=todayspaper

President Obama, whose vilification of insurers helped push a landmark health care overhaul through Congress, plans to sternly warn industry executives at a White House meeting on Tuesday against imposing hefty rate increases in anticipation of tightening regulation under the new law, administration officials said Monday.

This is ANOTHER example of PresBo trying to exert power that he DOES NOT HAVE. The President of the United States and, by extension, the Federal government, does not have any legal authority to control, regulate, or even influence insurance rates charged by health insurance companies. If he is concerned that ObamaCare will cause health insurance rates to rise, and if he is concerned that he, the law, and the Democrats who passed it will get blamed... well, maybe he shouldn't have signed the law in the first place.

The law WILL drive prices up, there's no way to get around that. If he'd wanted a different result, he should have pushed for a different law.

Don't you just love the temper tantrums he throws when he's the most powerless to act? Of course, he'll probably take it all out on McChrystal tomorrow...

Read the rest...

Primary Day In Three States Today

Three states have their primaries today: South Carolina, North Carolina, and Utah. There are three major races to watch:

In South Carolina, will GOP voters choose Representative Nikki Haley as their first female candidate for Governor? She failed to get her 50% of the vote in the primary, so she's in a runoff today.

In North Carolina, Democrats will choose their challenger to an incumbent with shaky poll numbers, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC).

In Utah, a Tea Party candidate is challenging the establishment candidate to fill Bob Bennett's seat. Mike Lee, supported by the Tea Party movement, hopes to defeat Tim Bridgewater, who is endorsed by Bennett.

We'll see the results tomorrow.


Read the rest...

The Great Divide: Politicians vs Citizens

Here's another example of how politicians want one thing, while voters want the opposite. Or, as in this case, how citizens THINK politicians are.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 62% say politicians want more money and power, while 58% want them to have LESS money and power.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/june_2010/62_say_politicians_want_government_to_have_more_power_and_money

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 62% of Adults nationwide say most politicians want more power and money for the government. Just 13% believe the opposite is true.

At the same time, 58% believe that most voters want the government to have less power and money. Only 22% believe most voters hold the opposite view and want a bigger role for government.

Politicians DO want more money and power. Why else would they go into politics in the first place? Oh, there are some exceptions, but not many.


This illustrates the great divide between politicians, who want to take our money and control our actions, and citizens, who want to be left alone as much as is possible. And it's another reason why things won't get any better. Why? Because it's the politicians who pass the laws!

We need more regular people who will vote to LIMIT government expansion to run for office. Until we get that... the politicians win.

UPDATE: A Rasmussen poll found that 65% of "the political class" think that Canada has the better health care system, but 61% of the American Mainstream think our system is better.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/june_2010/32_say_canada_has_better_health_system_than_u_s



Read the rest...

Obama Philosophy: Control Everything

I think this story is indicative of Obama's overall philosophy towards the relationship between our government and the citizens of this nation. Napalitano says that in order to fight domestic terrorism, the government needs the ability to "monitor" the Internet. Napalitano also says that such "monitoring" won't infringe on any rights or freedoms... and anyway, security is more important.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/18/napolitano-internet-monitoring-needed-fight-homegrown-terrorism/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxnews%2Fpolitics+(Text+-+Politics)

Fighting homegrown terrorism by monitoring Internet communications is a civil liberties trade-off the U.S. government must make to beef up national security, the nation's homeland security chief said Friday.

Napolitano said it is wrong to believe that if security is embraced, liberty is sacrificed.

She added, "We can significantly advance security without having a deleterious impact on individual rights in most instances. At the same time, there are situations where trade-offs are inevitable."

I think this is pretty emblematic of PresBo's overall philosophy, here.


That philosophy is: "If people use it, then government should have some portion of control over it. The more control over it that government has, the better off everybody is."

It's a pretty simple philosophy, but I think it's more than a bit frightening.

Notice how details of exactly what "monitoring" they mean aren't provided. But this sounds an awful like tracking browsing history and possibly monitoring emails, chat rooms, and forums. Silly me, and here I thought that the Constitution limited government's ability to do such things to its citizens.

So we have another power grab. So far, they've seized ownership of auto companies, dictated salaries and policies to banks, and taken over the health insurance industry, just to name a few. Now they want the Internet.

As I said... government control is best. According to our commander-in-chief, that is.

Read the rest...

Breaking: Tim James Withdraws Election Challenge

Tim James' announcement this afternoon at 4:00 PM, an entire weekend later than it should have come, is nonetheless the correct decision. James announced today that he was abandoning his challenge to the primary election results.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/06/tim_james_drops_out_of_alabama.html

Greenville businessman Tim James dropped out of the Republican race for governor this afternoon but said he has no regrets about his campaign or the recount of the June 1 primary results.

James said he would drop the election contest he had filed with the Alabama Republican Party, which had set a hearing for Thursday. He said he had no choice but to seek a recount given the razor-thin margin of the race, but conceded Monday that the recount conducted last week did not change the outcome.

I had predicted that James would continue with the challenge even though the recount did not change his order of finish. I predicted he would do so based upon some missing ballots, some unsealed ballots, and some machines with incorrect dates.

I was wrong.


James did not rule out another run for office in the future. I find nothing wrong with that, but I will admit myself hesitant to support him in any future race. I want any politician I back to win OR LOSE gracefully. James lost and refused to acept it, which tends to illustrate that he views his own wishes as more important than anything else. I commend him for abandoning the challenge, and this action has somewhat mitigated the bad impression I have of him as a result of his demand for a recount.

Only somewhat, however.

If he runs in the future, I will look at him again... but not with the same eyes that saw him a few months ago.

Now, can we focus on the runoff?

Read the rest...

Obama's "Problem-Solving" Method

PresBo has formed a commission to investigate the BP oil spill, determine what went wrong, and make recommendations to help prevent it from happening again. One would think that such a panel would have a good helping of engineering knowledge and experience. How else could they determine what failed and what measures might prevent a future failure?

One would be wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100620/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gulf_oil_spill_commission

The panel appointed by President Barack Obama to investigate the Gulf of Mexico oil spill is short on technical expertise but long on talking publicly about "America's addiction to oil." One member has blogged about it regularly.

Only one of the seven commissioners, the dean of Harvard's engineering and applied sciences school, has a prominent engineering background — but it's in optics and physics. Another is an environmental scientist with expertise in coastal areas and the after-effects of oil spills. Both are praised by other scientists.

The five other commissioners are experts in policy and management.

Apparently, PresBo believes that engineering knowledge isn't helpful... but POLITICAL pandering IS.


Why else stock the panel with people who have been outspoken against "big oil" in the past? It doesn't even sound like they're going to do much worrying about "determining" anything. They already KNOW what is wrong, and most have some idea what they want the panel to recommend. And the panel hasn't even had it's first meeting yet!

The commission has yet to meet, yet some panel members had made their views known.

Environmental activist Frances Beinecke on May 27 blogged: "We can blame BP for the disaster and we should. We can blame lack of adequate government oversight for the disaster and we should. But in the end, we also must place the blame where it originated: America's addiction to oil." And on June 3, May 27, May 22, May 18, May 4, she called for bans on drilling offshore and the Arctic.

"Even as questions persist, there is one thing I know for certain: the Gulf oil spill isn't just an accident. It's the result of a failed energy policy," Beinecke wrote on May 20.

Two other commissioners also have gone public to urge bans on drilling.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't an INVESTIGATIVE committee formed to determine what went wrong actually... oh, I don't know... RESERVE JUDGEMENT until they've actually done some investigating?????

Doesn't that sound more reasonable than pre-forming opinions not only on what caused the problems but also on how to prevent future incidents?

So PresBo's response to this oil spill is NOT to actually try to fix it, but rather to play politics. INSTEAD of dealing with the actual problem, he wants to score political points.

It's business as usual for PresBo.

Read the rest...

Monday's Random Thoughts

Some Random Thoughts

Do those who condemn BP CEO Hayward for attending a yacht race also condemn Obama for having a golf game with Joe Biden around the same time? If not, WHY not?

Congress just gave themselves an EXTRA week of vacation this summer. Wouldn’t you love to be able to do that?

Did you know that we’ve had twice as many bank failures this year as we had last year in the same period? In the first half of 2009, there were 45 banks seized that held $20 billion in toxic assets. In the first half of 2010, there were 83 banks seized that held $33 billion in toxic assets.


If Obama actually did tell Senator Kyl that he wouldn’t secure the border because it would remove any reason for Republicans to support “comprehensive” reform, what will his allies in Congress think of him giving voters another reason to oust Democrats in November?

How does passing a Cap & Trade law affect the BP oil spill at all? Using the spill to advance his political agenda is despicable.

Still waiting on any official word from Tim James on the recount and his already-filed election challenge.

Bentley has a poll he commissioned showing he leads Byrne by 16 points in the upcoming runoff. And a previous Rasmussen poll showed Bentley had a better chance to defeat Sparks than did Byrne. Could we be seeing the dawn of Governor Bentley?


In one day we learn both that Rahm Emmanuel will be leaving the administration within the next six months… and that such a claim is BS (in Rahm’s own words). Isn’t instant news wonderful?

Napalitano says they must “monitor the internet” to stop domestic terrorist attacks, but that it isn’t a violation of our freedoms. That’s like saying jumping into a river is a good way to cool down without getting wet.

The Imam building a mosque at ground zero refuses to condemn the terrorist factions of his faith. Should we really allow those who attacked us to build THEIR memorial on the site of the attack?

Obama wants reduced emissions, which he believes his cap & trade bill will accomplish, and is willing to use the oil spill crisis as a way of advancing his unpopular agenda. So much for “new politics,” eh?

Obama has demonized BP to the point where he can extort billions from them and deny their victim-status with a straight face.

Is this logic? Pass a health care reform bill that relies on decreasing medicare reimbursement rates by 21%, then work hard to “fix” the reductions out of existence… and claim that the health care reform bill isn’t costing more than originally projected!

And while Medicare reimbursement rates just dropped by 21%, fewer doctors are accepting Medicare patients. Logical or surprising?

Obama spent $800 billion in stimulus finds, on top of all the TARP and bailout money they spent, but the private sector isn’t recovering. Why should we believe that another $55 or even $100 billion stimulus program would do any better?

Read the rest...