The US government is putting a hold on new solar energy projects on public land for two years so it can study the environmental impact of sun-driven plants.
The Bureau of Land Management says the moratorium on solar proposals is needed to determine how a new generation of large-scale projects could affect plants and wildlife on the land it manages.
So, we're not supposed to be searching for new oil deposits under the faulty reasoning that it will take too long for the petroleum to enter the proverbial pipeline BUT we're supposed to wait for solar and other "alternative" sources to come on line.
Working in harmony with the ideas presented by David Frum in Comeback, Conservatism That Can Win Again, we have Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam writing Grand New Party.
This book epitomizes the emergence of the debate over contemporary conservatism and its discontents. NRO's John J. Miller interviewed the authors for an podcast of "Between the Covers." You can listen to it here.
Nebraska's Scott Kleeb is the pretty-boy of Nebraska politics. Having lost a bid only 2 years ago for a House seat he's now out campaigning for a shot at Nebraska's open Senate seat against Republican Mike Johanns. If the polls are to be believed, Kleeb is down by at least 27 points against Johanns. However, that's not stopping the progressive jagoffs at DK from making Kleeb a contender, nor does it seem to be stopping Jon Tester from doing a little stumping of his own.
Jack over at The Western Word reports that Tester is sending out campaign donation requests on behalf of Kleeb to help increase what Tester is calling the "Senate Tractor Caucus." What Tester should be saying in it's place is that he's interested in increasing the progressives in "Ag Drag" caucus, because the majority of farmers and ranchers who are members of Congress are Republicans.
Kleeb likes to don the progressive drag made famous by Jon Tester...Carhartt overalls, work gloves, and an oddly clean Stetson. At least in Tester's case the Stetson was replaced by a cap and the dirt and stains on his clothes are real.
You see, Kleeb likes to prance around as the homoerotic front-boy of midwestern progressives. All hat and all prattle no cattle as the saying goes. Kleeb even shares a penchant for marrying down with none other than Barack Obama. There's no use beating a dead horse in pointing out the harpy Michelle Obama. Kleeb even has his own harpy in the closet.
Jane Fleming Kleeb is the front-woman for the Young Voter Pac, another Soros-funded front group organization coordinating the 18-35 set for various progressive causes. When she's not busy playing the part of the doting Nebraska wife she plays pretend on TV as a "Democrat strategist."
When she's not busy playing make-believe, as in "my husband has a snow balls chance in hell of winning yet another election" she's busy carrying water defending the reprobate congressman John Murtha for his obnoxious attacks on the innocent Haditha Marines.
It makes one contemplate how long it will take for Scott Kleeb to throw his wife under the bus...or keep her locked away in D.C. while he continues to impersonate a candidate with a fighting chance.
In a season fraught with bad news for mainstream Republican candidates came some welcome news from Utah earlier this week.
Jason Chaffetz's promise to change Washington, starting with Rep. Chris Cannon, resonated with Republican voters, who ousted the six-term incumbent in a GOP primary Tuesday.
"We rocked the vote here in Utah and we rocked the Republican Party," Chaffetz told about 175 supporters gathered to celebrate the victory. "I think we've been given a mandate to return the Republican Party to its core conservative principles."
Chaffetz fell 10 votes shy of eliminating Cannon at the Utah Republican Convention, forcing him to a primary. Cannon out-raised Chaffetz by nearly 7-to-1, had the endorsements of President Bush and Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, and spent tens of thousands of dollars on polling.
Chaffetz hammered away at Cannon, running a relentless campaign targeting Congress' failure to control government spending, fix immigration and energy policies, and vowing to eliminate the federal government's role in public education.
"The Republican Party is broken and I want to fix it," said Chaffetz, as his supporters celebrated, drinking apple beer at a gathering in Springville.
Sweet music to my ears! I donated to Chaffetz during the primary against Cannon and I plan to continue to do the same. If you have some spare change lying around and want to put it to good use I humbly suggest supporting Chaffetz or other like-minded candidates from around the country.
There's a nascent movement out there to bring the party back from the edge. While there's no hope for change at the national level from Montana, supporting people like Chaffetz, Cantor, Flake, Pence, and McCotter sends a strong message to the powers that be at the national level...one they'd be foolish to ignore in the months and years ahead.
I had never heard of Claude Castonguay until reading a post the other day on HotAir. My wife knew who he was, but she's a lot smarter than I am.
Monsieur Castonguay is the father of the national healthcare program in Canada. The reforms he started in Quebec, which spread throughout the rest of Canada in the 1960's, led to the system that many progressives here in the United States now hold up as a model for how to start a similar program here at home.
There's only one problem with the socialist dreams of the American gimme-class. Castonguay is now advocating an American-like system for our friends north of the border.
"We thought we could resolve the system's problems by rationing services or injecting massive amounts of new money into it," says Castonguay. But now he prescribes a radical overhaul: "We are proposing to give a greater role to the private sector so that people can exercise freedom of choice."
Castonguay advocates contracting out services to the private sector, going so far as suggesting that public hospitals rent space during off-hours to entrepreneurial doctors. He supports co-pays for patients who want to see physicians. Castonguay, the man who championed public health insurance in Canada, now urges for the legalization of private health insurance.
In America, these ideas may not sound shocking. But in Canada, where the private sector has been shunned for decades, these are extraordinary views, especially coming from Castonguay. It's as if John Maynard Keynes, resting on his British death bed in 1946, had declared that his faith in government interventionism was misplaced.
Why the sudden change of heart?
Try a health care system so overburdened that hundreds of thousands in need of medical attention wait for care, any care; a system where people in towns like Norwalk, Ontario, participate in lotteries to win appointments with the local family doctor.
Years ago, Canadians touted their health care system as the best in the world; today, Canadian health care stands in ruinous shape.
A recent study by the Frasier Institute indicates why Americans might want to pause and take a deep breath before considering adopting the single-payer reform promoted by the Democrat party and failed community activist Barack Obama.
When is national health care not national health care? When the wait times, which seem to be built-in to every single payer system I'm familiar with, actually promote those most in need of health care to simply sit and wait it out, hoping for an appointment in 3-9 months time. That's what the Democrat party is offering. It's not national health care but national hope care. Hope the problem goes away because they're sure as hell not going to be able to fix it in an appropriate amount of time.
Of course in so many other matters we've already seen the lengths that progressives will go to excuse and explain-away the obvious failings of their candidate and policy positions over the last 30-40 years. When push comes to shove under their proposed single-payer dreams nightmare, perhaps they could just adopt another policy from north of the border by deporting those who put a burden on the health-care system.
A live-in caregiver from the Philippines, the terminally ill cancer patient will be forced to leave when her work permit expires in two months, even though her period of service here as a nanny was supposed to be the gateway to permanent residency.
"While I am sympathetic to your situation, I am not satisfied that these circumstances justify granting an exemption," a case processing officer in Alberta wrote in the latest decision. "In the opinion of a medical officer, this health condition might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demand on health and social services."
It's becoming fairly obvious that the Democrat party, and their hangars-on, are willing to excuse just about any foible when it concerns their newly crowned prince.
A few days ago, Yo'Bama! met with members of the Congressional Black Caucus in Washington. During the meeting the issue of "healing" the party came up in relation to helping gain the trust and support of the majority, who voted for Hillary Clinton during the primary process.
Sources at the meeting said that Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, a Clinton supporter, expressed the desire that Obama and his campaign would reach out the millions of women still aggrieved about what happened in the campaign and still disappointed that Clinton lost.
Obama agreed that a lot of work needs to be done to heal the Democratic Party, and that he hoped the Clinton supporters in the room would help as much as possible.
According to Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., Obama then said, "However, I need to make a decision in the next few months as to how I manage that since I'm running against John McCain, which takes a lot of time. If women take a moment to realize that on every issue important to women, John McCain is not in their corner, that would help them get over it."
Rep. Diane Watson, D-Calif., a longtime Clinton supporter, did not like those last three words -- "Get over it." She found them dismissive, off-putting.
"Don't use that terminology," Watson told Obama.
Got that sweeties? There's a new sheriff in town, and his name is Reggie Hammond Barack Obama. Mike
If nothing else I suppose you at least have to admire this dipshitsself-loather kids foray into what they claim is the "reality" based community. I'm speaking of course about the post-pubescent Matthew Yglesias. You can see him here, dressed as a jihadi-wannabe:
Yglesias obviously took time away from pleasuring himself more important matters to weigh in with one progressive's take on the public benefits of high gas prices.
...expensive gas has a lot of public benefits. And if we made gasoline more expensive through, say, higher gas taxes or a carbon tax then not only would we secure the public health, congestion, and environmental benefits of expensive gas but the government would have a good source of revenue with which to mitigate some of the consumer pain.
Notice that he seems to advocate not only higher gas prices but seems to think that taxing it at an even higher rate will alleviate all the ills of the body politic. Another glimpse under the hood of this progressive Yugo spittle flecked ubër douchebag reveals the idea that somehow the government is better able to "mitigate some of the consumer pain" than the actual consumer is, that they're better able to spend your money than you are.
Noah Pollack, writing at Commentary describes a "serious point" about what he's termed "Yglesianomics."
But there is a serious point to be made here, which is that it’s very interesting to observe the contradictions among liberals between their desire for progressive taxation and their advocacy for higher gasoline taxes. Demand for gasoline, in economics jargon, is inelastic, meaning that a change in price is not rapidly followed by a change in demand. In other words, the working mother who has to commute 10 miles to work each day cannot in short order switch to a job closer to home or buy a Prius, and so she is forced simply to pay the higher prices and reduce spending in other parts of her budget.
Normally, this is exactly the kind of scenario that would register significant rumblings on liberals’ economic seismographs, which are finely tuned to detect injustice: gas taxes are a classic example of regressive taxation, in which the tax burden falls disproportionately on the poor. New gas taxes wouldn’t have the slightest effect on the behavior of rich guys living high-consumption lifestyles, but would eat up a significantly higher portion of a poorer person’s budget. Yglesias and his tax-loving co-religionists can either be champions of the working classes, or they can lead a campaign to tax America’s carbon footprint into submission. But they can’t credibly do both.
The Democrats have a big problem here -- while they pose and preen as Heroes of the Working Man, in fact the actual leadership/power-base consists of nothing but effete urban queerbaits like Yglesias who would sell out the "working man" for some extra foam in his latte.
And the hard-hats and the soft-heads have a disagreement here that simply cannot be compromised or finessed away: the working man doesn't like high gas prices, but the soft-handed dipshitterati loves high gas prices, and in fact wants them even higher. (As Obama himself admitted not too long ago.)
Apropos my previous post on the myth surrounding fuel-cell vehicles is an piece appearing in The New Atlantis by engineer Robert Zubrin.
Neither type of hydrogen is even remotely economical as fuel. The wholesale cost of commercial grade liquid hydrogen (made the cheap way, from hydrocarbons) shipped to large customers in the United States is about $6 per kilogram. High purity hydrogen made from electrolysis for scientific applications costs considerably more. Dispensed in compressed gas cylinders to retail customers, the current price of commercial grade hydrogen is about $100 per kilogram. For comparison, a kilogram of hydrogen contains about the same amount of energy as a gallon of gasoline. This means that even if hydrogen cars were available and hydrogen stations existed to fuel them, no one with the power to choose otherwise would ever buy such vehicles. This fact alone makes the hydrogen economy a non-starter in a free society.
And even if you are among those willing to sacrifice freedom and economic rationality for the sake of the environment, and therefore prefer hydrogen for its advertised benefit of reduced carbon dioxide emissions, think again. Because hydrogen is actually made by reforming hydrocarbons, its use as fuel would not reduce greenhouse gas emissions at all. In fact, it would greatly increase them.
I've mentioned Rep. McCotter(MI-11) before. McCotter is chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee and recently advanced a set of proposals to his colleagues in the House on "Waging and Winning a Change Election." He's one of the few in Washington that "get it," and as such deserves both our praise and our donations come election time.
Today, Rep. McCotter took to the House floor to translate Democrat speech for the rest of America in a speech entitled “Speaking Democrat: A Primer.”
I can't be the only one out there has been seeing television ad's for Honda's new fuel-cell vehicle? It's been advertised on all of the major networks and has even popped up as an internet ad from time to time. The latest offering from Honda is being heralded as a savior for the environment because it only "emits water" as exhaust. It's not a bad idea in principal unless you come from the part of the world I inhabit, where the last time I checked hydrogen fuel stations are non-existent.
There's only one problem with this little venture, hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are far worse for the environment than the biggest Hummer or Peterbuilt out there.
Given current technology, switching from gasoline to hydrogen-powered fuel cells would greatly increase energy consumption even if the hydrogen were extracted from water rather than from fossil fuels. That’s because it takes a tremendous amount of electricity to harvest hydrogen and to deliver it to consumers. Moreover, a transition from gasoline to hydrogen would nearly double net greenhouse gas emissions attributable to passenger vehicles, given the current fuel mix in the electricity sector.
I've said it before and I'll continue to...the environmental movement is not about the environment, it's about control. The left is using the same emotional meme they so abhor when it comes from conservatives concerning the need to drill for more oil, the Right To Life, and other debates on national policy when it concerns the sacrosanct environment™.
The only difference is that conservatives continue to offer reality-based solutions that appear to be supported by a plurality of the American public while the Democrat party offers, well, nothing. Even when they peddle "solutions" like the fuel-cell vehicle they're not being honest. Scratch beneath the surface of any of their "solutions" and you'll see the same old song and dance...taxes and behavior modification power and control. It remains singularly at the core of what they seem to represent these days.
It's often been rightfully said that places like Vermont and Montana have more cattle than people. What's also been said is that the land of my late Mother In Law is home to more sheep than people, a fact easily appreciated if you ever get the chance to spend some time in New Zealand.
It was also once said that the sun never set on the British Empire. While it's evident to most that the reason for the supposed heliocentricity was related to the fact one should never trust the British with the lights off it's also apparent you can't much trust them with the lights on either.
It seems New Zealand is having trouble meeting their internationally agreed-to emission control standards, despite the fact the country is not exactly an international powerhouse as far as manufacturing or industry goes. As a result the greatest political minds in Wellington have assembled and determined the reason...sheep flatulence. The solution comes as no surprise...more taxes. I'm leaving out, on purpose, the fact that New Zealand plans a multi-million dollar research effort to study ways to decrease sheep flatulence in the hope I can corner the market on Ovine Beano.
About 1,000 farmers descended on New Zealand's Parliament Friday morning to protest against a proposed tax on greenhouse gas emissions from sheep and cattle. Farmers call it the flatulence tax, in polite company. The money raised would go for research on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The Federated Farmers of New Zealand have launched a campaign called Fight Against Ridiculous Taxes. (Note the acronym.)
Scientists estimate that methane emitted by farm animals is responsible for more than half of New Zealand's greenhouse gases.
Farmers claim they are being unfairly targeted by the government and they say they won't pay.
The tax could raise about $6 million a year.
If you look closely at the comments of Mr. Cullen you see where ideas like this are headed here in the States.
"We need to face up to the fact that we are producing a lot of greenhouse gases in New Zealand and we need to move away from that," Cullen said.
These are the same people who have already succeeded in outlawing the incandescent lightbulb in the U.S. despite the fact that the compact flourscent bulb, widely heralded as being good for the children™ environment virtually requires a Haz-Mat team if they break. What's a little neurotoxin among friends? At least it gets the tin-foil brigade first!
Where does this madness stop?
Pastor Martin Niemöller penned a poem familiar to anyone with an interest in Shoah studies. The poem dealt with the inability of German intellectuals, in the period following the rise of the NSDAP/Nazi party, to speak out against what they were seeing happen against their peers.
When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I wasn't a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
So, I'll ask you again, where does the madness stop? Will we jail those using incandescent light bulbs? Tax farmers and ranchers out of business? Require supposed cardon-neutral home's be built? Tax a home-cooked meal cooked on anything other than a smoldering pile of animal dung? When will we as American's finally stand-up to these environmental fascists and say "no more, not on my watch!"
It seems the farmers of New Zealand have finally arrived at their Waterloo. When will we arrive at ours?
In his first national ad buy Obama claims to have help extend " health care for wounded troops who had been neglected.”
That's a fine and admirable position...except that it's demonstrably false.
With a little research at Thomas.gov you find P.L. 110-181 is the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. Obama wasn’t present for that vote. Getting a bill through the Senate is a tedious process with many different votes, but Obama has to offer some evidence he actually did something to do what he takes credit for doing.
Now, in all fairness, John McCain was also not present for the vote...but he's not the one out there running a campaign ad claiming credit for something he didn't do. If he does you can rest assured I'll point it out.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
The text message said it all, "Mike, I don't think we'll need your services for the rest of the season. I hope you don't mind if we're late on the invoice." The message came from a client of mine in Iowa who lost his farm to 4 feet of water. It goes without saying that most of my clients (15% of my business+/-) in Iowa are in a similar situation... total loss.
The devastation in Iowa brings up an interesting comparison. When Katrina hit New Orleans and the levees broke, people who had spent a lifetime being neutered by government dependence didn't know what to do. There were riots, looting and murders. The sick and infirm were left on the side of streets and even inside buildings to die, if they hadn't already perished, and the National Guard had to be deployed just to bring back order so recovery operations could begin.
Fast forward to 2008 and Iowa. The entire state has been declared a disaster area. Flooding has turned it's major cities into giant lakes, their farms, long known amongst those in the business as producing the "high yield" winners for corn and occasionally soybeans are ruined. No where in the media have I seen video of people standing on their roofs with signs saying "help me!" No where have we seen rioting or looting. No one has advocated bringing in a fleet of FEMA trailers to house people who will be "permanently dislocated" because of the storm. Omaha, Sioux Falls, and Kansas City are hardly bracing for an influx of newly arrived "refugees" seeking permanent Section-8 housing. Iowans will do what they've always done, work together, rebuild, and depend on the strength of themselves individually and collectively to rebuild.
It's no small wonder Iowa's motto is, "Our Liberties We Prize and Our Rights We Will Maintain."
Katrina has become a metaphor for many things beyond natural disaster, including governmental and individual incompetence (depending on your point of view). In Iowa there is a 500 year flood, but the people are not paralyzed, whining, or looting. There will be no massive relief effort from around the world, and nobody will step up to help Iowans except for other Iowans. Yet years from now, there will be no Iowans still in FEMA camps.
The left has been spending a lot of time in recent days berating conservatives with the mantra (repeated everywhere from Democrat press conferences to left of mainstream blogs) that we can't drill our way out of the mess we're in with domestic oil/gas prices.
Democrat after Democrat has paraded themselves in front of the camera to proclaim to the public the same meme, "we can't drill our way out of this." As far as I know, not a single one of them has offered any proof, any research or data whatsoever that would support their premise.
As recently as last Wednesday, a House subcommittee rejected a Republican proposal to open more of our coastal waters to oil exploration. The vote failed 9-6. It's almost as if the Democrat party wants the public to suffer through high gas prices until, oh I don't know, November.
All's not lost on the Democrat leadership though. Despite defeating every Republican attempt to increase domestic oil production and exploration the brain trust has come up with two tried and true measures to help the public when they need it the most: a windfall profits tax proposalon "big oil," and suing OPEC. It's almost as if they can't help themselves from reaching back into Jimmy Carter's bag of tricks. We all know how well that worked out for us. One simply can't imagine why the approval rating of Congress is in the low-teens.
A windfall profit tax is essentially an after-the-fact tax on fixed capital. As such, it is prime candidate for the time inconsistency critique. In brief, because "windfall profits" represent returns on economic activity that has already taken place, it may seem like a free lunch for Democrats to generate revenue from these profits because there is not a whole lot that the taxed companies can do to to avoid paying the tax today. But if the impacted businesses anticipate that the tax will persist or be levied again in comparable future circumstances -- and why wouldn't they? -- the end result will be a less than socially optimal level of investment. That's a bad thing.
If the Democrat Congress is concerned about industries making "windfall profits," they might want to start by investigating the 57 industries with profit margins HIGHER than the oil industry (profit margin data available here).
Look, I understand why some on the left are opposed to exploration and development of our known oil reserves. They'd like to develop a carbon-neutral economy based on solar, wind, and other forms of "alternative energy" and are only all too happy to see the price of gas at $4/gallon. They might have some legitimacy on the issue if they weren't opposed to nuclear energy, or wind power generation off the coasts of their favorite vacation spots. One of the reasons that so many big government types are so keen on the environmentalist agenda is the way that it can allow the nanny state to intervene in areas that, even a few years ago, would have been imaginable. It’s about control; it’s not about the planet.
Take the "No Zone," for example:
The Democrat party seems content to have the Chinese Communists control vast amounts of what should be U.S. oil reserves in the straits between Florida and Cuba. Do we really think, knowing what we do about the ChiCom "commitment" to the environment that they'll care if their reckless exploration leads to oil spills from Key West to the outer banks of North Carolina....thanks to the influence of the Gulf Stream? Perhaps we've forgotten that only a few years ago, hours before aftermath of Hurricane Katrina became burned in the national consciousness, that Katrina was literally destroying the oil producing infrastructure in the Gulf of Mexico, and all without a drop of oil washing up on gulf coast beaches from Texas to Florida.
Further north we have ANWR, that great frigid and barren wilderness that must be protected at all costs from energy exploration. Despite the fact that Alaskan's in general, and natives in the area of potential drilling in ANWR overwhelmingly support exploration, it's a "no zone" as well...because it's all about the children caribou, and concern over this "pristine" wilderness. Jonah Goldberg, writing on NRO describes the liberal mindset as "an environmental Brigadoon or Shangri-La, a fabled land almost no one will ever see. That is its appeal. People like the idea that there are still Edens “out there” even if they will never, ever see them." To quote Dave Pittman, writing in The Juneau Empire, "There's probably more oil spilled in a Wal-Mart parking lot on a daily basis from oil seeping out of cars than on the North Slope." Having doubts that ANWR is in fact a frosty wasteland? Jonah has photos of the general area posted here.
ANWR.org has a page set-up describing what development of Alaska's Arctic Coastal Plain Means to Montana. They also report: The U.S. economy benefits from domestic production when new construction, service, manufacturing, and engineering jobs are created. These jobs occur in all 50 states. A national impact study by Wharton Econometrics estimates total employment at full production in ANWR to be 735,000 jobs. Federal revenues would be enhanced by billions of dollars from bonus bids, lease rentals, royalties and taxes.
And these jobs would be created across the country, not just in Alaska. To see the number of jobs created by state, go here. And that's just for ANWR, and doesn't count the new jobs from oil production on the outer continental shelf.
Aside from possible environmental concerns about developing America's 140 billion barrels of domestic oil reserves, what's not to like? We'd get lower oil and gas prices, more jobs and increased tax revenues. Seems like those outcomes should be welcomed by politicians of any party. And they'd even likely get the support of union members.
The last time I checked, jobs are good. Right?
So where do we go from here? Hell, I'm all in favor of increased research into solar and other alternative forms of energy but realistically these modalities won't be commonplace for a decade, if then. In the meantime we still need to get goods from point-A to point-B, we still need to harvest and plant our crops, transport our children to school, and drive to work.
A little more than 5 years ago I inquired about the cost of solar retrofitting what was at the time my mother's winter home in Palm Beach. The guy who came to assess the situation told me it would cost $30K-plus to outfit her home with solar panels which would then provide the electricity to cut her average $1000/month electric bill by a third...but only during the summer months. He said it would be better to wait until "they've" developed a fabric "panel" which could be attached to the roof and other areas of the house. "How long?" I asked. 10-20 years was his reply, based upon when the technology would be available to "the masses." If you've seen me lately, I most definitely qualify as a mass.
Until we can reach some form of national consensus on this issue we finally have an effort by Republicans in Congress to advance this subject in the public consciousness.
Then there's former House speaker Newt Gingrich, who is now running American Solutions, the group behind, among other things, the "Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less" campaign you've probably read about elsewhere, or seen linked from the sidebar of this and other blogs out there. While I don't support American Solutions on every matter of interest, Mr. Gingrich recently proposed what he considers 3 simple steps to lower the price of fuel:
Why not try it? What we're doing now, which amounts to nothing, obviously isn't solving the problem and millions of Americans are suffering because the Democrat Congress, according to Jeff Poor, sounds more like Karl Marx than Adam Smith over the issue of energy prices. Policies have consequences. And the House Democrats' protection of the environmental lobby causes the rest of us to pay higher gas prices. It's not that the Republicans have been any better on this issue in the past either...but at least they're now starting to offer real-world solutions to the problem we face, and that mainstream Americans support.
If the logic is good enough for Dhimmi Jimmy it's good enough for me:
Of course that was in the day's before Jimmy discovered he may get that second term he never had.
Dateline, the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer:
"I am a believer in knowing what you're doing when you apply for a job. And, I think that if I were to seriously consider running on a national ticket I would essentially have to start now before having served a day in the Senate. Now, there are some people who may be comfortable doing that, but I'm not one of those people."
It's not time to celebrate just yet, but this heralds what will hopefully and finally be the end of the most corrupt and dangerous premierships to ever stain Israel.
On Thursday I heard Obama say the following before the assembled in D.C.
“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes “Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties” as part of “an agreement that they both can live with.”
“Two principles should apply to any outcome,” which the adviser gave as: “Jerusalem remains Israel’s capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967.”
Rather than the Hope & Change™ meme we've become accustomed to from this circle jerk perhaps it's time to replace even his name with a symbol, like "the artist formally known as Prince" uses.
In Obama's case, I nominate the lowly asterisk, except in his case *ASSteRISK become more appropriate. As Ace says...I don't see the point of sending this imbecile nancyboy to negotiate with the fucking Girl Scouts never mind determined terrorists.
A state judge has ruled that a $27 million privately run jail in Hardin can accept out-of-state prisoners - offering some relief for a project beset by difficulties since its completion last year.
Thursday's order from District Judge Jeffrey Sherlock in Helena said McGrath misinterpreted state law. He pointed to out-of-state inmates at a county jail in Sanders County as evidence Montana officials had not treated Hardin fairly.
Sherlock wrote that state statute "expresses the legislature's clear and unambiguous determination that detention centers can house out-of-state felony and misdemeanor inmates."
The order came in a lawsuit filed by the city in response to McGrath's opinion.
"It's vindication pure and simple," said Greg Smith with Hardin's Two Rivers Authority, the city agency that built the facility.
Attorney General Mike McGrath in December issued an opinion declaring state law did not allow out-of-state prisoners at county jails.
Sherlock's opinion in this matter makes one wonder if the activist McGrath can misinterpret law in this case why he deserves a seat at the table, or the bench as the case may be, as Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court.
There is no doubt that the night belongs to the Democrat party...and more power to them. With Hillary refusing to concede, and all the lies contained in Obama's acceptance speech, the fun, dare I say the chaos(!!!) continues.
In light of the above, though, I'm proud still that Montana shed the Paultards from Big Sky Country and gave Mitt Romney the win when it still mattered. If only the rest of the country had seen the light a bit earlier.
If you're still following the returns the best place to do so on a county by county basis is, IMHO, the CNN portal.
There goes that historic, transcendent, life-changing, not since the Gettysburg Address, "I have a dream," must-be-taught-in-every-school race speech. It didn't hold up three months, let alone the time it would take to print up new textbooks.
Does this mean that the tingling in Chris Matthews leg might perhaps just be peripheral neuropathy brought on by diabetes and not in any way related to a supposed similarity between Obama's Philadelphia bullshit session speech and Lincoln's 1860 Cooper Union speech?
What Obama did today may have been politically necessary. It was certainly politically expedient. And it is yet one more blow to Obama’s image as a different kind of politician. In fact, as we’ve learned over the last few months, Obama appears to be a Chicago politician through and through. When he perceived a threat to his self-interest, he cut his ties to first his pastor and then his church, both of which he had expressed familial love and fidelity. This whole episode is deeply unattractive, even as it is deeply revealing.
Underneath the attractive veneer of Barack Obama beats the heart of a very, very ambitious man. Time will tell how problematic this may be and what snares this character trait may eventually lead him into.
To let you in on a little secret, I've been a member of the Illinois Nazis for twenty years.
But I now am surprised and disappointed to find them saying that "the Jews are using the blacks as muscle to move in on you, and you are left defenseless."
I just didn't know Illinois Nazis said this sort of thing. They certainly didn't say anything so controversial at all the Hitler Rallies and Cross Burnings I attended. You also have to understand the "context" in which these sorts of things get said, and also note the various grievances Nazis might have against the US government. Like, you know, they're still pretty pissed about that whole Dresden thing. And driving Hitler to suicide in his bunker. And various other anti-Reich activities.
Honestly, if you're not an Illinois Nazi, you really are in no position to judge what might be said inside the Aryan Church.
At any rate, as I now am surprised and disappointed to find my political viability as a blogger damaged by my utterly-innocent association with the Illinois Nazis, I am "distancing myself" from them at this late date.
I do not expect to be asked any questions about my lifelong association with them from this point forward. Some people are allowed to associate with hardcore racist extremists for all their adult lives and then simply disown their entire past history with a meaningless politically-expedient gesture, and I insist I am among the select few permitted this license.
Furthermore, this entire controversy is a "distraction" intended to draw attention away from my message and the issues that really matter.
Murder is worse than manslaughter, but we don't routinely excuse manslaughter or claim "Who are we to judge?," now do we? Is that not the same argument Obama seems to be taking when he say's, "It is not a church worthy of denouncing...?"
And that's where liberals progressives like Obama and company want to take this argument. For a group that claims to be concerned above all else with racial tolerance and harmony, they sure seem to excuse racism pretty quickly when either practiced or countenanced by their fellow travelers. Perhaps the only difference is that the speeches at Trinity were not delivered in their original German by a man in a toothbrush mustache, but rather by supposed "men of the cloth" in religious/tribal drag.
That a huckster like Barack Obama has been able to get away with the charade that he is anything other than a more palatable version of Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton speaks volumes about what the Democrat party is willing to excuse in their lust for power.
