|
Submitted July 24, 2010 by Chris (changed 7/26/2010 - 4:34 pm)
|
Updated 7/26/2010: I just ran across this and thought it was a fitting followup to the deficit post. From Freedom Line:
The Obama White House promised that his “stimulus” would keep unemployment below 8%, but we’ve instead suffered months of approximately 10% unemployment. Gross domestic product reports are tepid and often revised downward, and the Labor Department reported this week that unemployment claims increased just as Obama and Biden embarked on their “Recovery Summer” tour.
Obama’s “stimulus” has only succeeded in adding almost $1 trillion to our nation’s unsustainable debt, while failing in its stated goals. For the same cost, we could have completely eliminated the income tax for an entire year. That’s right – no income tax at all for 2009. Imagine the real-world stimulative effect that would have had. Unfortunately, Obama and liberals prefer more government spending and control of taxpayer dollars to the true stimulative effect that the income tax elimination would have instead provided.
No income tax for a year sure sounds like a better alternative to me!
Not really a surprise given all the spending that's been going on in D.C. The bailouts, new social programs, extending benefits without cutting others, etc. It all has a name, and that name is $1.47 Trillion. With a capital T. Do you have any idea how much that is? It's 1 and 1/2 of these, where each of the tiny blocks is $1 million (that wee little thing in the lower left is a person):
Holy smokes! That's a lot of bills my children are accountable for. And their children. And grandkids...
From the AP:
WASHINGTON (AP) -- New estimates from the White House on Friday predict the budget deficit will reach a record $1.47 trillion this year. The government is borrowing 41 cents of every dollar it spends.
That's actually a little better than the administration predicted in February.
The new estimates paint a grim unemployment picture as the economy experiences a relatively jobless recovery. The unemployment rate, presently averaging 9.5 percent, would average 9 percent next year under the new estimates.
The Office of Management and Budget report has ominous news for President Barack Obama should he seek re-election in 2012 - a still-high unemployment rate of 8.1 percent. That would be well above normal, which is closer to a rate of 5.5 percent to 6 percent. Private economists don't think the unemployment rate will drop to those levels until well into this decade.
|
Submitted July 20, 2010 by Chris (created 7/20/2010 - 1:48 pm)
|
Be afraid, be very afraid. via POLITICO:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “the mother of health care,” Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed Monday.
Speaking at a campaign event in Philadelphia for congressional candidate Bryan Lentz, Biden reworked a line of praise from Rep. Allyson Schwartz, who said Pelosi was the most powerful woman in American politics.
“I would rephrase that: the most powerful person in American politics with the exception of the President of the United States,” Biden said, according to the pool report. “The single most successful, the single most persuasive, the single most strategic leader I have ever worked with is Nancy Pelosi.”
Read the whole story
Seems that Biden doesn't put much stock in himself or his position. 
|
Submitted July 20, 2010 by Chris (changed 7/20/2010 - 1:34 pm)
|
This was submitted today at Sovereign Idaho and is something I have myself briefly mentioned before. It is an important part of the political process, and is not mentioned often, if at all, in the courtroom. The concept of jury nullification has been around for centuries. It is a right and power that those performing their duty as jurors should know about and utilize. When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. --Thomas Jefferson
“All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary.” - Constitution of the State of Idaho, Article I, Section 2
Similar wording is found in most other state constitutions, in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. However, similar wording is not found in most school “social studies” textbooks.
American jurisprudence is built on the foundation of common law and natural rights which are firmly established in our founding documents. Any acts of government which defy common law and violate natural rights are null and void.
Jury nullification is one of the important legal and peaceful processes by which the people can resist and nullify unjust laws. It is a de facto and traditional power of juries, even though modern textbooks and judges rarely, if ever, inform people of the jury's nullification power.
The power of jury nullification derives from an inherent quality of common law - a general unwillingness to inquire into jurors' motivations during or after deliberations. A jury's ability to nullify the law is further protected by two other common law precedents: the prohibition on punishing jury members for their verdict and the prohibition on retrying defendants after an acquittal.
|
Submitted July 19, 2010 by Chris (changed 7/19/2010 - 8:30 pm)
|
|
Submitted July 19, 2010 by Chris (changed 7/19/2010 - 3:08 pm)
|
First, C. Everett Koop chimes in and recommends a "no" vote due mainly to her involvement with the partial-birth abortion ban:
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has written an extensive letter to members of the Senate calling for a no vote on the Supreme Court nomination of Elena Kagan. The letter focuses attention on the Clinton administration memos Kagan authored showing her attempting to manipulate abortion opinion.
Specifically, Koop refers to the ways in which Kagan influenced the language of a 1997 statement by American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists on partial-birth abortions.
Whereas ACOG found no occasion in which the three-day-long abortion procedure is medically necessary for women, Kagan pressured ACOG to include language saying there may be instances where it is and the Supreme Court eventually relied on that language to overturn state bans on the abortion procedure.
That eventually kept partial-birth abortions legal for several years longer until the Supreme Court reversed itself when considering a national ban Congress approved with medical findings that partial-birth abortions are medically unnecessary.
In his letter, Koop calls "unethical" and "disgraceful" Kagan's effort to persuade the medical group to change its expert opinion to conform to her political demands.
"She was willing to replace a medical statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical data," writes Koop.
"Kagan's political language, a direct result of the amendment she made to ACOG's Policy Statement, made its way into American jurisprudence and misled federal courts for the next decade," he said.
He condemns Kagan for having “manipulated the medical policy statement on partial-birth abortion of a major medical organization.”
Read the whole story
Second is her promotion of Shariah while at Harvard:
|
Submitted July 19, 2010 by Chris (changed 7/19/2010 - 2:30 pm)
|
Many will wonder about this as the difference seems insignificant. The thing is, it's not. Worship, albeit a large part of what most consider a "religion", is still just one part. By making this minute shift in his speeches, Obama is setting up a difference between the more encompassing sharing with others, dressing in particular clothes, participating (or not) in certain rituals, along with worship and the much more focused act of worship alone. I'm reading too much into this you say? Do you really think he says anything that isn't calculated?
WASHINGTON, DC (Catholic Online) - The change in language was barely noticeable to the average citizen but political observers are raising red flags at the use of a new term "freedom of worship" by President Obama and Secretary Clinton as a replacement for the term freedom of religion. This shift happened between the President's speech in Cairo where he showcased America's freedom of religion and his appearance in November at a memorial for the victims of Fort Hood, where he specifically used the term "freedom of worship." From that point on, it has become the term of choice for the president and Clinton.
In her article for "First Things" magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, "To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: "The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It's about the right to dress according to one's religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don't go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet "freedom of worship" would protect none of these acts of faith."
Read the whole story
|
Here is his new release titled "I'll Give Up My Gun."
