Judge Sonia Sotomayor

If you have been following the major news outlets this week (Fox News included), you know a few things about the judge President Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court:

1. She is a She.
2. She is Hispanic.
3. Republicans had better watch out if they question anything about her.

Republicans have tripped over themselves saying they will not criticize her based on her sex or ethnic background. I believe there are a few good reasons to deny Judge Sotomayor the highest court in the land. Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. If my criticisms would be valid against a white Republican, then they are valid against Sonia Sotomayor.

Her previous decisions do raise some real question marks, specifically her decision in Ricci v. DeStefano. The city of New Haven, Connecticut uses an exam to qualify firefighters for promotions. This test is examined ahead of time to make sure it is "race neutral" and it is administered due to an agreement between the city and the union. Traditionally, firefighters who pass the examine are promoted. On one specific occasion, 16 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter passed the exam. They were not promoted because no black firefighters passed the test. The city decided they wouldn't promote anyone if there were no successful black applicants. The firefighters sued believing they had been the victims of racism. The lower court dismissed the case, and Judge Sotomayor heard it as an appeals judge and agreed with the lower court. In the coming weeks you will hear more about this case for three reasons: the appeal of the case is going to be decided by the Supreme Court in June; the decision, coupled with other comments by Sotomayor, does not pain a flattering picture of the Judge; and another Hispanic Judge, Jose Cabranes, wrote an opinion questioning Sotomayor's decision.

She has made some very questionable remarks, in public and on the record, regarding her judicial philosophy. This is important because her comments are fair game in confirmation hearings. She shouldn't be asked how she will decide on gay marriage, abortion, or school prayer, but she can be asked what she meant when she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." President Obama and Secretary Gibbs have both tried to clarify these remarks.

Perhaps even more troubling are her remarks in 2005 stating that policy is made at the appeals court. Policy and law are not made in court. State and Federal Legislators make law, not judges. Judges interpret that law. They decide what is and what isn't out of bounds. They don't decide where that foul line is.

Republicans should challenge Judge Sotomayor on these points, and others that may come out over the next few weeks. Democrats and the Media would do well to look over these issues as well. Perhaps they should stop telling Republicans what is fair criticism, and look at Judge Sotomayor's record.

Why Do We Have CAFE Standards?

Last week President Obama had a major press conference to announce a proposed new national fuel economy standard for vehicles. This new standard will average out to around 35 miles per gallon. This new standard implements some policies from the Bush administration years ahead of their original target date and creates a national corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard.

CAFE standards started in the late 70’s and were specifically targeted at passenger cars. At the time they were created to lessen our use of foreign oil. They have failed miserably with this goal. According to the Heritage Foundation, the US has increased its foreign oil consumption from 32 percent to 52 percent of oil used since the standards were adopted. The new time lines announced last week will affect the 2016 model year cars. These standards will require that all of a particular class of vehicles sold by any manufacture average out to meet the target miles per gallon. The footprint of the vehicle is the best way to think of the different classes. If Ford sales 1,000 cars in a certain footprint, those 1000 vehicles must average out to have the target fuel efficiency. If Ford sales a lot of cars with lower efficiency, then the other cars must have a much higher efficiency in order for the 1000 vehicles to average out to the required mandate.

There are trade offs to higher fuel economy. According to the Obama administration, the new national standards may add around $1300 to the purchase price of your vehicle. This is only an estimate, and some groups claim the real price is higher. There is also only so much fuel economy you can get from an engine. The rest has to made up by making the car lighter. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has expressed concerns that the lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles result in more fatalities every year. CAFE standards have resulted in an estimated 1,300 to 3,900 deaths per year, depending on the year and the source. Some environmentalists would argue that these deaths are acceptable if we lower the amount of pollutants discharged each year to help solve global warming. The truth is that CAFE standards won’t solve global warming. The next time you drive to work and see a convoy of tractor trailer trucks, or pass a construction site, remember those vehicles are exempted from CAFE standards due to their size. The CAFE mandate also argues against itself. The theory is that more fuel efficient vehicles reduce our need for oil and gas. In reality, fuel efficient vehicles make driving cheaper. Cheaper driving means more vacations, more car trips, and more gas used.

Personally I don’t think the government should be telling auto makers what fuel efficiency their vehicles must achieve. The government doesn't mandate XM radio (yet), why fuel efficiency? President Obama has never run a business, and I don’t believe there are any automotive engineers in Congress. The government should try to address other problems. Perhaps after the economy is fixed, the nuclear problems of Iran and North Korea are resolved, and terrorist stop trying to kill us I will change my mind. Until then, I think the government needs to keep its eyes on the ball, and stop worrying about whether my car gets 20, 30, or 40 miles per gallon.

Quick Notes: Political Friends.

I wanted to post a quick update on what is going on and to apologize for not answering comments this weekend. Work has been a little busy this weekend so it has eaten into my blogging time. I spent 19 hours at work yesterday for example. In addition to that, I chose to simply ignore this blog over the last couple of days. Go figure.

There have been some good comments (both for and against) my last two posts, and I want to give them the attention they deserve. I hope to catch up on my responses tomorrow. This week, I want to write blogs on C.A.F.E. standards and on Minnesota's governor. Consider this your fair warning if you want to do your homework ahead of time.

I hope everyone had a great Memorial Day weekend, and look for two new posts later this week!

Prager University

I attended the "Obama the First 100 Days" tonight featuring Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, and Hugh Hewitt. There were a lot of interesting topics discussed, and I think I got a few ideas for future posts.

At the end of the night, Dennis Prager asked everyone to check out a new project of his called Prager University. It's on You Tube. I looked at it when I got home and was impressed with the first course. I don't typically listen to Prager, but I still found this very interesting. The clip is five minutes long, and I am keeping this post short so you will have time to watch it. Enjoy!

Book Review: The 5000 Year Leap

Quite possibly the best book I have ever read on the U. S. Constitution and what the Founders intended.

If I could only write one sentence about The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World by W. Cleon Skousen, that would be it. If I could add a second sentence, it would be, "The book is easy to understand and is intended as a High School text book." If you are looking for an easy to read book on the Constitution, this is it.

The 5000 Year Leap was written because Mr. Skousen wanted a book that, "…catalogue[d] the ingredients of the Founding Fathers phenomenal success formula so it would be less complex and easier to digest." This combined with recognition of mistakes elected representatives were making inspired the book. It is written as a high school text book, and does a very good job of explaining the fundamentals of our government. Mr. Skousen came up with 28 principles that represented what the Founders were trying to accomplish.

Mr. Skousen shows a deep understanding of the Constitution. For example, under the chapter The 17^th Principle: Checks and Balances, there is a complete list of checks and balances found in the U.S. Constitution. There are 18 of them.

The book does not specifically attack one party or another. I am not sure the Republican or Democratic Parties are mentioned at all in this book. Right and Left are mentioned, but not in the concept of Conservatism vs. Liberalism. Mr. Skousen uses these terms as he claims the founders would have understood them. According the political theory at the time of the Constitution, government ranged from the "left" or complete tyranny imposed by a monarchy to the "right" or absolute anarchy with no government at all. The founders intention was to get the United States government in the exact center of this political spectrum. Our founders thought of our government as a three headed eagle, with the Judiciary, the Legislative, and the Executive branches all being represented by one head of the eagle. In addition, one wing represented the "Problem Solving Wing" or what government could do with unlimited funds. The other wing represented "The Conservation Wing" or the wing responsible for making the best use of all funds available. If both these wings work together, the eagle flies straight and doesn't lean towards tyranny or anarchy.

The 5000 Year Leap quotes the founders extensively. If you read the book with an eye to today's politics, it is easy to see that our elected officials (Republican and Democratic alike) have either forgotten the lessons listed here, or never knew them. Some of the chapters may cause you to question your own political beliefs and what you have thought of the U.S. Constitution. If you don't believe Mr. Skousen, it is easy to follow his footnotes to do your own homework and make your own decisions.

I would beg anyone with a high school age student to buy The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World and ask them to read it. Every voter should read this book before they head to the next ballot box. Every elected official should be forced to read this before being sworn into office. If you only buy one book that I review on this website, this is the book.

****

If you like this post, you may also like:

Book Review: Glenn Beck's Common Sense

The Repugnant Nature of the Minimum Wage

Of Government and Men: Introduction

Godfather Obama and the UAW

This past week has shown us that President Obama will do anything to protect the UAW. The President is willing to break the law, strong arm banks with TARP money, and use the "…full force of the White House press corp…" to destroy any dissent. The President isn't interested in doing what is right, or what is legal, but what protects the UAW.

As Chrysler heads into Bankruptcy court, we should all pay attention. GM (commonly referred to now as Government Motors) is likely to head the same way, and we may see more TARP companies or banks go into bankruptcy before it's all over. Whatever happens to Chrysler is going to set precedent for future bailouts and bankruptcy's.

President Obama attempted to force a bankruptcy down the throats of Chrysler's creditors that violated contracts those creditors had in place. He hasn't given up on this and is actively working on it. Secured creditors loaned money to Chrysler with a contract that stated if Chrysler sold off its assets, these secured creditors would be paid back, dollar for dollar, before any other creditor is paid back. President Obama is attempting to violate this contract simply because it suits his political will. He believes these creditors should only get 28 cents for every dollar they loaned Chrysler. The UAW would get 55% of the entire company.

In a related story, you may have read that some of the banks that received TARP money want to pay it back to the Government. President Obama won't let them. Why? The stated reason is that these banks need to pass a "stress test" to prove they are sound enough that they don't need the money. This is way above and beyond simply bailing out banks. When last I looked, President Obama has no experience running a bank, or a company. Who is he to decide when a bank can or can't pay back the money? More importantly, this money isn't the President's money. The money loaned to these banks, and to the auto industry, is tax payer money. The President is suppose to be a steward of the tax payer's money. Right now, he is failing at that job. Instead of protecting the tax payer, President Obama is controling these banks so they won't object to his version of Chrysler's bankruptcy. Imagine if President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Karl Rove had cooked up a scheme like this...

Perhaps the most disturbing part of this entire story is the threat by President Obama to destroy Chrysler's creditors in the press if they don't submit to his will. This is the classic Chicago political move of "making them an offer they can't refuse". One creditor has gone on the record stating they were threatened by the White House. How many more creditor's have been threatened and are afraid of President Obama, Press Secretary Gibbs, and the Democratic PR machine? These thug style political manuevers got him elected in Chicago, and he is trying to use them to get what he wants now.

President Obama's tinkering with the auto industry threatens property and contract law in our nation. The precedent it starts is that if you have a contract, its only valid as long as the current President says so. This is not the way our government is allowed to operate under the U.S. Constitution.

There are a number of good articles covering this. I have provided links below to the most recent ones I have read.

The Big Business of Big Labor from the Washington Examiner

Chrysler Bankruptcy Exposes Dirty Politics from CBS News

An Offer You Can't Refuse by the Economist

If you think I am simply a crazy conservative, go read those three articles and see if you still think so.

The Specter Defection

There has been a lot of commentary in the media over Senator Arlen Specters move from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. Many are portraying this as a wakeup call in some form or another. One of the best pieces I have read on Specter's move is by Noemie Emery of the Weekly Standard. Mrs. Emery uses Specter's defection as a call for more of a big tent in the Republican Party. I think she is right.

Mrs. Emery points out a fact that many voters on the right and the left forget: Conservatism is a movement and not a Party, while the Republican Party is not a movement. The goal of a movement is to advance a set of ideals. The goal of a political party is to get more people elected and to implement a political platform. Republicans need Conservatives to win national elections. Conservatives need Republicans (even the not so conservative version) in order to get their ideals acted on. As good as Mrs. Emery's article is, there are two points she and most commentators seem to be missing.

First, many elected Republicans have pushed the parties platform aside. Elected Republicans have forgotten the Contract with America, and have become as big government as their Democratic counterparts. Many voters who traditionally vote Republican are upset with that. To make matters worse, since the 2006 elections, the Republican party has had trouble convincing voters that they want to get back to the Party of the 90's, let alone Regan's big tent party of the 80's. Many Republicans talk about attacking new voters. But they phrase this in how they wish to change the party. Republicans should be looking at ways they can phrase their message or better communicate it to traditionally Democratic voters.

The other point that seems to get lost is why Specter changed parties. Mrs. Emery touches on it, but then forgets it. Arlen Specter was most likely going to lose his primary battle. He looked at the numbers, and in order to stay in the Senate, switched parties. He is very likely to get reelected as a Democrat. In my opinion, this speaks to a larger problem. Specter has been in politics since the 60's. He started his career as a Democrat, and switched to the Republican party after his first election. He has been in the Senate since 1981. He is approaching 30 years in the Senate. Mrs. Emery and other Republicans seem to think it is tragic that he would loose his primary. I think it would have been a good thing. Do we really need Senators in office for 30 years? One of our problems in the Congress is that these older Senators are more concerned with winning another term than they are with fulfilling their role as the outlined by the Constitution.

Specter's defection should be a wake up call for the Republican Party. I think Republicans needed to be doing some soul searching right now for a number of reasons. However, I believe Specters defection should call us all to examine a different issue: Term Limits in Congress and the Senate. Specter switched parties to stay in office. Do we really need any Representative or Senator in office for thirty years? I don't think so. If a President is term limited to two terms, why should a Senator (or Representative) be able to make a full career of sitting in the Senate or the House?

Book Review: Ted, White, and Blue

My wife and I were watching Glenn Beck one night when Ted Nugent was on as a guest. The Motor City Madman was on the whole night talking about America, Politics, and our Society. During the course of the night, they talked about his book, Ted, White, and Blue: The Nugent Manifesto, and I knew I had to read it. The book did not disappoint me.

This is not Ted Nugent's first book. It is his sixth. The book covers a wide range of topics, and is his personal manifesto. As such, he makes no apologies for anything he says in the book. Some of it is fun, some of it is insightful, and some people will be insulted by some of the stuff they read. The truth sometimes hurts. Through the course of the book, Mr. Nugent gives his recommendations and ideas on a number of issues including: Politics, Religion, War, Taxes, Immigration, Unemployment, and Global Warming. This is by no means and all inclusive lists. There are seventeen chapters in the book covering seventeen topics. Ted, White, and Blue also has a decent index, and thirteen pages of notes and references.

Ted Nugent surprised me by his depth of knowledge on a number of the topics. I am a supporter of nuclear energy, and believe we should be building more reactors. Environmentalists concerned with reactors always ask, "What will you do with the waste?" Ted Nugent has a great response:

"Another unfounded fear is based on the waste that nuclear power produces. The overwhelming majority of the waste from nuclear power plants could be stored in your backyard with no risk to you. It is totally harmless. You could pick it up with your bare hands and not suffer any ill effects. Of the remaining nuclear waste, most of it could be recycled and used again but peanuts-for-brains Jimmy Carter banned the recycling and use of nuclear waste in 1977. Fortunately, the American voters banned Jimmy in 1980. Carter's baseless decision means that all nuclear waste we have ever produced must be stored in a nuclear waste repository such as Yucca Mountain…"

According to the material cited in Ted, White, and Blue, there is enough nuclear waste material in the United States, that if recycled, could power every household in our country for twelve years. That sounds like a good idea to me. Another unique idea from his book revolves around two hot button issues: Health Care and Illegal Immigration. There are a number of different studies that try to calculate the health care costs to American Taxpayers for treating illegal immigrants in emergency rooms. If someone goes to a hospital and needs emergency care, they have to be treated, even if it is something minor like a hang nail or a cough. Someone has to foot the bill for this "free" health care. Mr. Nugent suggests deducting the cost of the health care from the foreign aid we would normally send to the illegal immigrants home country.

Ted, White, and Blue is a fun read. While it does talk a little about Ted Nugent's biography, it is really a discussion of solutions for current problems. I would highly recommend it as an entertaining read that may provide some unique view points and solutions you hadn't considered before.

Why I go to the Tea Parties

There have been a lot of comments on here and in an assortment of media outlets regarding the people who attend Tea Parties. Some of the worst comments are those like Jeanine Garofolo saying that Tea Party attendees are only protesting a black man being President. The racist comments are uncommon, but not as uncommon as they should be. What seems more prevalent is the belief that the Tea Parties are organized by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Fox News and that the goal is to overthrow the government. Anyone who says this hasn't spent any real time talking to those who attend the parties.

While kooks are often attracted to protests (both on the left and the right), the majority of people I have seen at the Tea Parties are there because they are upset by the spending going on in government right now. Many were mad at President Bush and the previous Congress for TARP and the bailouts of GM and Chrysler. They are also mad at President Obama and the current Congress for continuing these bailouts, and for the ever increasing budgets and spending programs. Many of the attendees realize there is no way to continue this level of spending without dramatically raising taxes on everyone. The chart below was published originally in the Washington Post, and has been researched and defended by the Heritage Foundation. It shows the deficit under President Bush and the projected deficit under President Obama.

Whether you believe the White House or the Congressional Budget Office, neither of the above estimates are good. The spending in Washington is way out of control. Every idea in Washington revolves around funding a program, spending money on research, or buying something. There are very few elected officials arguing to cut the budget, and not enough officials arguing to stop the bailouts (auto, credit, or bank). My biggest fear is that the bailouts are going to make things worse, not better. By propping up these industries, we are delaying the day they go through the reforms they need. As painful as those reforms are now, they are going to be much more painful down the road.

I go to the Tea Parties to protest the current levels of spending by our government. This includes President Obama's spending and Congresses spending. I am not there to protest just President Obama. If the protests were about Global Warming or some of the other silly idea's this administration has, I probably wouldn't attend. While these ideas are worthy of debate, and I do debate them here, they aren't as dangerous as the continued spending by Washington. If we continue on the pace the chart above shows, our economy is going to get so bad, cap and trade and national health care won't matter. I can't speak for everyone at the Tea Parties, only myself. I can say that many of the people that I have spoken with at these parties have the same concerns I do, and are worried about the same things. The Tax burden on the American Worker is already too high. Spending like we are seeing in Washington is going to make that tax burden much worse.

I also go to the Tea Parties because I don't believe it is the role of our government to do these things. I don't believe our government should bailout financial companies and car industries. I don't believe we should step in and fire private CEO's. I don't believe the government has a right to interfere in how business pays their employees. Every time the government interferes in these areas, all of our freedoms are diminished. Anytime the government is allowed to save a bank, or a car company, or to fire private employees, it represents a time when the government gets to take control of our lives. I think Americans would be much better off without the government telling them what to do. Do we need some boundaries for companies to operate within? Sure. Do we need the constant intervention created at the end of Bush's term and perpetuated under President Obama? Absolutely not.

As I said, I can't speak for every person at these Tea Parties. I can say most of them are every day Americans who work and send their kids to school. These Americans deserve our respect and they deserve to have their voice heard in Washington. I , and many of the Tea Party attendees, believe Republicans and Democrats have stopped listening to voters. That's not good for anyone.

This post was published at Tea Party Patriots and Political Friends.

Is $100 Million more or less than $8 Billion?

While trying to catch up on politics today, I came across this exchange on the Real Clear Video site (video provided by Sevenload)

Link:

The transcript can be found here. I have to give credit where credit is due. I am often critical of the AP and ABC News both for what I feel is a lack of unbaised coverage. However, both of these reporters brought up excellent questions. After watching the video, I don't think Mr. Gibbs answered the original question. President Obama is trying to show sympathy with the public by cutting $100 Million out of the $3.7 Trillion budget over the next 90 days. Why is that a big deal? The $100 Million won't touch the budget and won't even be a whisper when compared to the deficit. Why should voters be excited about $100 Million? And why did Mr. Gibbs describe $8 Billion as miniscule and now ask for accolades for attempting to cut $100 Million? If Mr. Gibbs can't find the money to cut, why not look for programs like the $7 Billion in the stimulus package to improve broadband coverage nationwide. Surely that isn't important in a down economy.

Back From Vacation!

I have returned from sunny Maui. Tomorrow I must return to work. Hopefully I will be back to regular post in the next couple of days as I bring myself back up to date in the world of politics.

Posted with LifeCast

Maui Tea Party

Having attended a Tea Party in Atlanta a while back, I was very excited when the national tea parties started showing up for Tax Day. I was going to be on vacation, but was able to coordinate with the organizers in Maui to be at their tea party today.



Unlike the last one I went to, the weather was great. I asked around, and I estimate there was probably 200 to 300 people at the event by the time I left. This is pretty amazing because most of the people were residents of Maui. Many of them were complaining about their local representatives.

I have heard today's events reported as "tea parties that were started by conservative bloggers, talk show personalities, and republicans." This isn't true. These tea parties are grass roots movements. The one I attended today was organized by a self proclaimed Democrat. In an email to me, he stated that he has supported a number of liberal groups over the years, but he felt the spending in Washington has really gotten out of hand.

As I am on vacation, I thought most of this post would be some of my favorite pictures from today's event in Maui. This first one made me laugh the most:



Considering this weeks revelation of what the Deparment of Homeland Security thinks of out spoken conservatives, I thought this one was pretty good too:


This sign also appeared at another Tea Party in Lahaina earlier in the day:



One participant was kind enough to let me borrow his sign so I could get a photo of me at the demonstration for my readers:

Letters of Marque

In my last post, I got on a bit of a soap box about the standoff with pirates over the captain of a private vessel in Somalia. Brandon points out that using our navy to fight pirates around Africa may not be the best, or most cost effective solution. Brandon suggests using a combination of convoys and training for local coast guards to solve the problem. For a short term solution, I am not against convoys. However, there is one solution that I am in favor of that could potentially make money for our government and has worked in the past: Letters of Marque.


Letters of Marque are issued to private entities. The documents allow a privately owned vessel to attack specifically named enemies of the issuing nation on the high seas. This was a way of dealing with pirates in the 1700's. The receivers of the Letters of Marque are typically called privateers.


There is legal grounds for the United States to issue these. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to issue Letters of Marque in Article I, Section 8. As much as our Congress likes to spend money, they may consider this idea. Secondly, those nations that signed the Declaration of Paris in 1856 agreed to no longer issue Letters of Marque. The United States is not a signer of the Declaration of Paris. Finally, we have used Letters of Marque as recently as World War Two. Admittedly, that is the only time the U.S government has since the War of 1812, but we have done it.


Historically, a privateer would pay a fee to a nation to get a Letter of Marque. Let's say $100,000 in today's world. The privateer would be responsible for outfitting and training their crews, and would be entitled to a percentage of any "booty" captured under the Letters (let's call it 85%). The United States would designate specific "hostile forces", such as pirates operating off the coast of Somalia, and would get the 15% "booty" not accounted for in the last sentence. One last note, the privateers would also be able to deal out punishment to any pirates they captured. The Letters are very specific in the areas and enemies privateers are allowed to operate. It would not be a blank check to cause mayhem on the high seas.


I think this is a very smart way to handle the pirates. The United States doesn't have to beef up it's military presence near Somalia, nor do we put additional funds and resources into the area. Private companies or individuals would go forth and deal with the pirates. Already the pirates have said they are going to retaliate on future U.S. vessels they capture, and they have tried as recently as today. Letters of Marque were quite effective against pirates in the past, and can be once again.

There's More Than One Way to Skin a Pirate

I am on vacation with my family, so I haven't been following politics as closely as I normally do. Having said that, I have been bombarded by the pirate story. If you have escaped the news, go check out Fox News or CNN, I am not going to repeat the details here. However, as I write this, the situation is that the captain of the Maersk Alabama is still being held by pirates. The Alabama itself made it to port sometime yesterday, but the crew is still on board the vessel. It seems the FBI is considering the ship a crime scene and is trying to build a case against the pirates. Negotiations with "elders" claiming to represent the pirates today broke off when the American negotiators insisted the pirates be handed over to local authorities.

Before I get on my soap box, let me point out that my criticism's are not directed exclusively at the Obama administration. I wrote about pirates last year, and I was not impressed with how we handled that situation either. As I said then, pirates are the blood suckers of the modern world. All western nations should respond to pirates with as much speed and firepower as necessary. I would be quite happy if the Navy captured these pirates and hang them from the yard arm. One could make the argument that we should do everything in our power to return the captain safely home. Any outcome of the current situation that allows the pirates holding this captive to live will result in more pirate attacks on vessels flying U.S. colors. Our ships haven't been attacked by pirates in hundereds of years becuase we were preceived as too big of a threat to attack. If we do anything to diminish that view, we will see more pirate attacks, more hostages, more demands for ransom, and perhaps, more dead sailors.

When you attempt to take a ship by force, you take your life into your own hands. It's time to show pirates that if you attack American ships, we will respond with everything in our arsenal.


UPDATE:

Drudge and others are reporting that the Navy rescued the captain after a firefight that killed three of the four pirates. Good Work!!

More and More impressed with Michele Bachman

I am on vacation this week with my family, so I haven't been following politics as closely as I normally would. However I found this video clip at Freedom Works. The clip is a little less than 6 minutes, but I think it is very important to watch.





Two quick points. First, the more and more I hear from Rep. Bachmann, the more and more I am impressed with her. At the very end of the clip, you will her Barney Frank call her down. The more and more I hear from Barney Frank the more I wonder why he has a job. If the CEO of GM and other companies can be fired because of their actions at private companies, why can't Mr. Frank be removed from office for his part in getting us into the current mess?

A Quick Quote...

I finished Mark Levin's book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto on an airplane today. The end really struck me:

President Reagan said,"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."

We conservatives need to get busy.


This is what I have been thinking for a while now, but I couldn't articulate as well.

Posted with LifeCast

The Presidents Policies Are A Threat To Freedom

Our country was founded on the belief that people should be allowed to determine their own path. My success or failure should be determined by the choices I make. As companies grow to the size of an AIG or a GM, it is easy to see them as faceless giants. They are still companies and people who are guaranteed their freedom.

Our nation has a long history of cherishing freedom. The pilgrims were looking for freedom when they came to the United States. Our Founding Fathers sought to protect our very "...Life, Liberty, and the Prusuit of happiness". We fought many wars to protect our freedom and to protect the freedom of others.

Our nation now faces a new "soft tyranny". While the President is not throwing us in prison, or torturing us in the dead of night, he is slowly but surely eroding our Freedoms. Our Constitution does not give the President hiring and firing abilities at private corporations. The U S Constitution does not provide a provision for the President to design the cars of GM or Chrysler. The President does not have the authority to demand Chrysler and Fiat merge any more than he or our Congress can put salary caps on executives.

Each time the President oversteps his bounds the Congress must pull him back. If Congress won't , we the voters must reign them both in. It may seem like a good idea to "stick it to" the executives of AIG or GM, but it is really an erosion of Freedom. Remember, any power granted to this President makes it easier for the next one (Democrat or Republican) to grab more. This President attacks GM and AIG. The next may attack Hollywood or U S Today. If we don't convince our officials to roll this behavior back, to stop this "soft tyranny", we may one day find ourselves living in a "hard tyranny"

Posted with LifeCast

Quick Notes: Dad, the Dow, and more Tea Parties

A couple of quick hits that I wanted to share with the readers. I thought this was a perfect time for another issue of "Quick Notes"


My Dad. My Dad has entered the world of blogging. He has written a very detailed piece examining the rhetoric used by Adolf Hilter prior to taking over Germany, and President Obama's rhetoric on the campaign trail, and as President. Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs has posted it and I encourage people to stop by her blog and read the piece. It is an interesting site, so look around for a bit.

The Dow. I was reading my copy of The American Patriot's Almanac: Daily Readings on America, and came across an interesting entry for today. On this date in 1999, the Dow closed above 10,000 for the first time. I believe it closed on Friday at just over 7776.

Tea Parties. A number of my readers are interested in Tea Parties, and especially the ones held in Atlanta. Jenny Beth Martin is one of the organizers of the ones here in Atlanta. She also has a link to other tea parties across the nation. I found one on Maui I am going to visit on my vacation. It was also from Jenny that I found out Sean Hannity is going to be at the April 15th Tea Party held in Atlanta.

Book Review: A Slobbering Love Affair

A new book by Bernard Goldberg is worth bringing back the book review feature of this site. Mr. Goldberg's book, A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media, is a very critical look at the way the media covered the 2008 Presidential campaign. Mr. Goldberg does not blame the media for McCain's loss, nor does he attack President Obama. He does ask a few critical questions of Barack Obama, but this book is more a critique of the media, and not any one person. A sentence from the inside book flap really sums up the major theme of this book. Talking about the media's coverage of the 2008 presidential race, "…the media crossed an important line…moving from their usual unthinking liberal bias to crass partisanship of the crudest kind, practically acting as spin doctors for the presidential campaign of Barack Obama." Mr. Goldberg argues that some of it was intentional, but worse, some of it was done with the best of intentions. Many in the media honestly believed (and probably still believe) Barack Obama was a better candidate that McCain, and that by electing Obama, the United States would be brought into a new golden age. I have no problem with that belief. However, the media crossed the line by acting on it. By not reporting on stories that were critical of Obama or Biden, while digging through dumpsters in Alaska looking for any controversy regarding Sarah Palin, the media ditched their role as observer and instead became an active participant.

A Slobbering Love Affair does point out some concerns the author had for candidate Obama. The author provides a list of interview questions he would have asked the candidate that no one in the press thought of. For example, Mr. Goldberg would have asked:

1. "How willing are you to disappoint liberals?"

2. "Name two or three conservative ideas you find useful and would be central to your 'post-partisan' political philosophy."

3. "Some people believe that the reason so many young black people are behind the eight-ball in this country is not because of old-fashioned racism, but because of dysfunctional behavior: fifteen-year old girls having babies, teenagers dropping out of high school for example. You spoke forcefully and eloquently on Father's Day about this kind of behavior. But then you dropped the subject. As someone who enjoys tremendous support in the black community, you might have had some positive impact on the lives of these kids if you made it a recurring theme of your campaign. Why didn't you?" {emphasis in the original}

These questions appear in Chapter Eighteen, Ten Questions for Barack Obama. I would have liked to have heard the answers to these questions, but there were few in the media willing to ask them. Mr. Goldberg points out that the media is protected by the First Amendment because, "…the press has constitutional protections for one main reason: to keep watch over a powerful government." When that press becomes active players in one campaign or another, their credibility is lowered, or destroyed. Want to know why Democratic Senators are trying to bail out newspapers? Because the American public no longer trusts print media.

A Slobbering Love Affair is a very quick read. I would encourage everyone to read it regardless of your political leanings. If you believe the mainstream media is fair and unbiased, Mr. Goldberg has done some homework for you that just might open your eyes.

I Support AIG Employees

“The vote by Congress to tax Wall Street bonuses out of existence was economic populism run amok. This was legislating by rage, fear, and panic.”

-New York Daily News Editorial

Yesterday was a dark day in the history of the U. S. Congress. Our Congress voted to write a law that would retro-actively attack a small group of private citizens. These are the very tactics our country fought against in the Revolutionary War. Our Founding Fathers specifically outlawed this behavior in the U. S. Constitution. The thugs in Congress have decided they don’t have to play by the rules of the Constitution (assuming any of them still know where to find it to read). Our Congress has ignored the example of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams, and instead have chosen the example of King George during the 1700’s. One Republican even joked that these employees should kill themselves. Every single Republican and Democrat that voted to tax AIG employees at 90% yesterday should be forced to leave in disgrace.

According to varying news accounts, AIG paid out some $165 million in bonuses to between 73 and 463 employees. Most stories report the 73 number; I have seen one that reported the 463 employees. Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd want these people burned at the stake in the public square. Why? Because they had a contract with AIG, and they were arrogant enough to believe their employer would honor it. The employees fulfilled their end of the bargain, and expected AIG to pay them for it. I don’t know how many of you go to work and give your employer the option of paying you. I expect to be paid when I go to work and I know Congress expects the taxpayer to pay them.

Pelosi and other Democrats have stoked popular anger to the point that AIG employees are receiving death threats. According to the International Herald Tribune, “The Connecticut Working Families party, which has support from organized labor, was planning a bus tour Saturday of A.I.G. executives’ homes, with a stop at the company’s Wilton office.” The Democratically controlled Congress and Senate, in conjunction with some Republicans, and with the approval of President Obama are trying to steal money from private citizens simply because they have stoked public opinion against these people. Our elected representatives should be ashamed of what they have done, and we as citizens should be embarrassed by their behavior. Should anything ill happen to these employees, the blood will be squarely on the hands of Pelosi, Frank, President Obama, and their partners in this, “…populism run amok.”

Is Gibbs in Over His Head?

This weekend former Vice President Dick Cheney attack President Obama's policy decisions since entering office. The Vice President attacked decisions to close Guantanamo, stop waterboarding, and close down secret detention camps. These are all policy decisions with pro's and cons. As expected, current White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about these comments. Here is a partial transcript from U.S.A Today:

Question: "One quick followup: Former Vice President Cheney was on State of the Union yesterday. He had a lot -- a lot of criticism of this White House...[h]ow do you respond to those kind of allegations from the former vice president?"

Gibbs: "Well, I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy ... so they trotted out the next most popular member of the Republican cabal...


After Gibbs went on to explain his answer, another reporter asked this follow up question:

Question: "It was a really hard-hitting, kind of sarcastic, response you had. This is a former vice president of the United States. Is that the attitude? Is that the sanctioned tone for the former vice president of the United States from this White House?"{emphasis mine}

Gibbs: "Sometimes I ask forgiveness, rather than for permission ... but no, I hope my sarcasm didn't mask the seriousness of the answer ... that for seven-plus years the very perpetrators that the vice president says he's concerned about weren't brought to justice.

Mr. Gibbs responses to both of these questions are entirely fair and appropriate for a private citizen, a talk show host (such as Mr. Limbaugh), or even a Democratic politician. However, this attitude is entirely inappropriate for the White House, and the White House Press Secretary to use when describing a former Vice President of the United States. I would expect this kind of rehtoric coming from the campaign trail. Mr. Gibbs now speaks for President Obama and the White House any time he opens his mouth. To refer to the Vice President as a member of the "Republican Cabal" is not a new age of bipartisianship as President Obama has pledged.

Mr. Gibbs tries to recover by saying he has to ask forgiveness rather than permission. Again, this isn't acceptable from the voice of the White House. What happens when Mr. Gibbs makes this same type of flippant remark when refering to on of our allies? Will a foregin leader excuse this type of "sarcasm"?

President Obama promised us "Hope", "Change", "Accountablity", and "Bipartisianship". With a Press Secretary like Gibbs, the best we can do is keep hoping...

Update for Georgia Readers

I have a number of readers in the Georgia area. For those of you out there, Freedomworks is advertising two events in Georgia on March 21st. Go to the link for more details, but I have taken everything below directly from their site:

Georgia -

FreedomWorks Georgia is going strong with two important events this weekend, Saturday, March 21 in Duluth and Albany. We hope you can attend one!

Duluth Event:

Rep. Tom Price will be speaking to us March 21st, 8:30 am at Golden Corral in Duluth. Off 85, Pleasant Hill Road Exit. 3270 Satellite Blvd, Duluth, GA 30096 (770)495-7999.

Rep. Price is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee and will be giving us an update on upcoming bills and will speak to us about the “Card Check” Bill. Everyone is invited.



Albany Event:

John Oxendine Georgia Commissioner of Insurance will be speaking to us March 21, 3-4:30pm at the Albany Government Building at 222 Pine Avenue. During his tenure as Commissioner of Insurance, Mr. Oxendine has consistently put taxpayers and small businesses first, increasing the efficiency of his department to better serve constituents and saving taxpayer funds.

In addition to remarks by Mr. Oxendine, attendees will learn how to organize the grassroots in their community and get updates on current issues on the local, state, and federal level. If you are interested in attending the Albany event, please call Donna Driskell at (229) 881-0717.

The Stem Cell Debate

The science behind stem cell research is very confusing. It is a subject I have struggled with for some time, and one I have followed since President Bush authorized some federal funding of Embryonic Stem cell research in 2001. Monday's decision by President Obama was a terrible decision, but you may not realize just how terrible. To help illustrate the point, here is my quick primer on Stem Cell research and my own thoughts on the debate.

The Stem Cell Debate 101

The first fact you should know is that there are currently no treatments and no cures that were created from Embryonic Stem Cells. None. Secondly, there are many, many treatments available from adult stem cells. These include treatments for cirrhosis, Crohn's disease, lupus, sickle-cell anemia, urinary incontinence and many other benefits including for cancer patients, the blind, and restoring bone marrow. There have been zero treatments created from Embryonic Stem Cells. Zero.

Embryonic stem cells are no longer necessary for scientific research. In November of 2007 a team was able to produce the equivalent of embryonic cells without creating or destroying an embryo. This method has continued to improve. When this breakthrough was announced, many cited it as proof that President Bush was correct in instituting restrictions in 2001. Some even suggested this would put an end to embryonic stem cell research. Why destroy an embryo if you don't need too?

President Bush did not ban embryonic stem cell research. He limited federal funding to research involving any line that was in existence prior to August of 2001. In so doing, he became the first President to actually authorize tax payer funding for embryonic stem cell research. Look here for a more detailed history of what previous Presidents have and haven't done. The public is very divided on this issue. President Bush felt it was therefore inappropriate for the federal government to force taxpayers to subsidize what many believe is the destruction of human life.

The Debate

President Obama stated that this (and future executive orders) is about, "…letting scientists…do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient…" That is the wrong approach to take on this or any scientific subject that involves testing on humans. You may not believe life starts in the womb. However, everyone reading this was once an embryo. We are talking about destroying a "pre-birth" human in the name of medicine or science. This isn't a scientific decision, it is a moral decision. If scientists want to experiment on any creature, whether it is an embryo, an inmate, a senior citizen, a monkey, or a dog, politicians need to weigh very carefully the benefit and the morality of such behavior. The scientist says, " I want to run this test on people in jail, or medical patients in a hospital because I think I might one day cure blindness." Policy makers must decide if we are willing to sacrifice those people for such experiments. This decision is not based purely on science, but on what we will accept, morally, as a society. Is it acceptable to destroy life to try and make future generations healthier? As Ryan Anderson wrote this week for The Weekly Standard, "Listening to scientists who tell us what they want to do doesn't mean we should give them a blank check; we need to determine if what they're proposing …is what they should be doing." From the movie Jurassic Park, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."

As with other scientific issues, there are scientists on both sides of this argument. Some believe we should take whatever chances we can in the hopes of saving lives down the road. Others argue that there is very little difference in an embryo and a newborn baby. We can't destroy life simply to perform science.

A Slippery Slope

One of the problems with this research is, "Where do you draw the line?" If we start with embryos that "were going to be destroyed anyway" is it that big of a step to start cloning a few in the hopes of saving millions? Any treatment that results from embryonic stem cells will require cloning to be effective, so why not start now? If you are ok with destroying clones and embryos, what about the elderly? What about the disabled who might have a reduced quality of life? Surely the sacrifice of an 84 year old vegetative person is acceptable if it will save lives down the road…

This is a very tough topic. Smart and well meaning people can arrive at different conclusions. However, we need to remember we are destroying unborn humans in this research. Also, this is not a scientific decision. Science tells you there is a potential for a beneficial outcome from these experiments. It does not guarantee any result, and it does not rule on what is right and what is wrong.

Democrats Kill D.C. Scholarship Program

There is a school choice program in D.C. that Democrats in Congress are doing everything in their power to kill. The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program allows parents in the District of Columbia to move their children out of dangerous and failing schools and send them to better performing, safer schools with some federal help. By "dangerous and failing" , Dan Lips and Robert Enlow write:

"One out of every eight D.C. students reported being assaulted or injured with a deadly weapon during a recent school year. That’s equal to the percentage of D.C. eighth-graders who scored “proficient” in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress."


Currently there are some 1,700 children enrolled in the program. At a cost of $14 million, these children are able to attend schools that help them prepare for college, and keep them safe. In an age of multibillion dollar bailouts to banks and auto companies, this program is on the cutting board because Democrats believe in teachers unions more than they believe in families, children, or freedom. Freedom of choice is o.k if Democrats are talking about killing an unborn child, but it is unacceptable when discussing getting a good education for a student in a bad neighborhood.

The current spending bill as passed in the House kills the D.C. scholarship program after the 2009 -2010 school year. Any students still going to private schools will be forced to go back to their zoned public school. Yesterday, Natasha Shannon wrote in the New York Daily News defending the DC program. Ms. Shannon is able to send her two daughters to a better school than she was able to attend as a kid. She graduated valedictorian of her class in Harlem and began attending a community college. In college she had to attend remedial classes in order to stay in school because her high school hadn't prepared the valedictorian to attend a community college.

Democrats have not argued that the D C public school system is working. Instead, Democrats in Congress are dumping money into the D. C. system, and expressly forbidding it be used for any school choice program like the one currently in place. Without authorizing any study on the success of the current DC program, they are killing its funding. Democrats are showing they care more for teachers unions than for parents and children. I thought it was Democrats who fought for minorities and not big business.

For once there is a government program that appears to be working, and is providing families with freedom. Surely we can fund it at the same time we are trying to save badly managed auto companies and banks.

Atlanta Tea Party Update II

This if for those of you interested in what the Atlanta Tea Party looked like on Friday. Michelle Malkin has a number of videos from other cities on her site. I found this clip there.

Quick Notes: The Stock Market, Maryland, and Twitte

Time for another issue of quick notes. In this issue we look at the stock market, religious freedom, and a new way to keep up with yours truly.


Wall Street Votes on President Obama. Today's market closed down almost three hundred points. By almost three hundred I mean 299.64. Wall Street continues to vote on what it thinks about the future. The votes aren't good. You may believe Obama is the new messiah, but Wall Street doesn't. If President Obama's spending policies don't change, we may one day wish for a 7,000 stock market.


The Maryland Constitution. I am reading Enough is Enough by Rick Scarborough. Mr. Scarborough traces some of the religious origins of our country and quotes the Maryland Constitution. While founded by Catholics, their constitution tried to protect the religious freedom of all Christians. It said:


All persons, professing the Christian religion,are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty; wherefore no person ought be any law to be molested in his person or his estate on account of his religious persuasion or profession, or for this religious practice; unless, under colour of religion, any man shall disturb the good order, peace and safety of the State.


This passage comes very close to how I believe the founders viewed religious freedom. So long as your beliefs didn't harm the rest of the society, you should be left to your own beliefs.


Twitter. Last night I signed up for a twitter account. You can now follow me on http://twitter.com/andyspolitics in addition to this site. There are a number of times I would like to post a very short thought. I will now do that on Twitter. If you aren't familiar with Twitter, it takes about 3 minutes to create an account. I am still an infant on their, but I have found it really easy to post there, and to find others there.