Representative Ballentine has posted on his blog the letter Governor Sanford sent the House that includes all the line-item vetoes used on South Carolina’s State Budget. You can take a look at this horribly(?) long letter here.
As Gateway Pundit point out, Amnesty International seems to take some unnecessarily hard punches at the United States while completely avoiding seemingly more pressing issues.
However, that isn’t the only thing they seem to get wrong. Take a look at their profiles for Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian Authority. See anything missing? Yep, it seems that Amnesty International fails to leave out anything having to do with terrorism.
Groups such as Hamas, Fatah, or Hezbullah are just considered “armed groups,” not terrorist groups. And these groups don’t commit murder, they just commit “unlawful killings.” I hate all this PC talk.
Also, in the Israel profile, they list off supposed human rights abuse after abuse without ever discussing why Israel has had to take those security measures. I’m not saying that everything they have done is right but Israel is in a very special situation where it is surrounded by enemies who have almost all vowed to push it into the sea. Combine that with the fact that you have a domestic populace (Palestine) that also wants to see this happen and you have a pretty “dire” situation.
Then again, when you think about it, Amnesty International is a pretty worthless group. All the countries that have the worse human rights violations are not even going to listen to what Amnesty’s report says. Therefore, the only thing Amnesty can do is be critical of countries like the United States or Great Britain whose populaces will listen and make something get done for these mostly minor (in comparison) issues.
If you don’t know who Todd Davis is, its the CEO of Life Lock who dares you to steal his identity while giving out his Social Security Number. And I bet you can’t guess what happened.
Yep, he got his identity stolen.
Note: it’s probably not smart to dare a nation full of potential hackers to try to do something like that. We got some pretty smart people out there.
There are times when I am just at a loss of words and it takes me a while to stop fuming enough to write a post. This is one of those times. A Colorado bill, which is just one signature away from becoming law, would make it so public bathrooms must be, in all reality, co-ed.
A new “transgender nondiscrimination” bill pending in Colorado, which would make it illegal to deny a person access to public accommodations including restrooms and locker rooms based on gender identity or the “perception” of gender identity, is one signature away from becoming law.
Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter,a Democrat, has one week to sign or veto Senate Bill 200, recently passed by both the House and the Senate. The bill, titled “Expanded Discrimination Prohibitions,” holds this definition:
“‘Sexual orientation’ means a person’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another person’s perception thereof.”
According to the bill, business owners and managers of restaurants, gyms, barber shops, massage parlors, etc., and managers of “public [facilities] of any kind whether indoor or outdoor” cannot deny a person employment or access to a facility based on gender identity or that “perception.”
The bill also makes it illegal to discriminate based on “sexual orientation” when renting, selling or leasing housing or when selecting members for jury duty. Penalties for those who discriminate against others based on gender identity include fines and/or time in jail.
What does all the jibberish mean? It means that if a man decides to dress up like a woman, he couldn’t be refused entry into the woman’s restroom or locker room. As the article states, this means even public schools. Scary isn’t it?
What makes this even more scary for me is that this has a lot of potential to be a “slippery slope” issue. Even though this bill excludes religious facilities, you know someone will complain down the road and get some legislation proposed to end that exemption.
Plus just the stupidity of this bill is just outrageous. Imagine a Peeping Tom right in a girls’ locker room for a place like the local YMCA. Several women discover him and decide they want to sue. Do they sue the man? the YMCA for allowing him in? the state? Do they have any rights at all other than to just let it occur?
And Democrats blame Republicans for taking away privacy rights?
Luckily this bill hasn’t passed yet so there is still time. Contact Colorado Governor Bill Ritter and voice your protests against this bill. Hopefully he will listen
Hat Tip Right Wing News
I have probably stated this fact before but the French get roughly 75% of their energy from nuclear power. They have been operating on a mainly nuclear power since the 70s and the lack of media attention this has received should be a sign of just how successful they have been in this respect.
A recent news article by CNN makes the argument that the US should follow the France’s example in order to end our dependency on foreign oil.
When Goldman Sachs analysts suggested last week that oil could hit $200 a barrel, I expected someone somewhere to express horror at the possibility. But the reaction was a tiny, resignation-filled sigh. Relentless fuel-price increases have so exhausted consumers that we don’t have the energy to be outraged anymore. So we feel helpless as we watch oil sprint past the $130 mark on its way to price-prohibitive territory and wonder whether it’s too late to bring back the horse and buggy. Our sense of helplessness is an illusion: There are things we can do. We got ourselves into this mess, mostly through multiple administrations of politically comfortable but shortsighted decision-making. And inasmuch as we’re willing to stand a little political discomfort, we can get ourselves out.
One uncomfortable way to mitigate the energy crisis has been under our nose since the 1950s: nuclear energy. It’s one of the cleanest and most efficient alternatives to coal- and natural-gas-based electricity production, and it’s responsible for less than 20% of domestic electricity production. The most recent numbers (2006) indicate that coal-based production was the largest contributor, at 48%. Increasingly expensive petroleum and natural gas account for 22%. All three are replaceable.
It may not be fashionable to suggest that the French know what they’re doing with regard to anything but wine and cheese, but spend some time in Provence and note the remarkably clean air and cheap electricity, 75% of which is produced by nuclear power plants. Most of the plants were built after the 1970s oil shocks that sent France’s economy into a tailspin because it was almost completely dependent on foreign oil, as we are now. Nuclear energy doesn’t produce the air pollution that burning coal does, and even waste products are recyclable, though it hasn’t been done thanks to an also potentially shortsighted Carter-era decision to ban it over fears of nuclear terrorism.
I don’t normally say this but the French have a good idea here and I think we just might to emulate them this one time.
In a recent article in Sky News, the author claims that with the current supply and demand of oil, prices should be at 60-70 dollars a barrel.
A source at Opec said its 13 members were uncomfortable with the current price of crude, which last week hit a record $135 a barrel.
Based on present supply and demand, he said it should be fetching $60-$70 a barrel.
I have taken basic economic courses in the past and the only thing that could be making the prices this high are either 1) taxes or 2) the oil companies are inflating the prices through some kind of Cartel-like conspiracy.
Given, I have only the most rudimentary knowledge of economics so if someone with more economic prowess would like to chime in, please leave a comment.
There are some days that I just don’t care who wins the Presidency come November. Sure, I’m going to vote McCain but that doesn’t mean I have faith in him to not screw up this country. I only have faith that he won’t screw up this country as much as Obama will (and that isn’t saying much).
So today I began pondering what would be the Republican “dream ticket” comparable to the Obama/(2x)Clinton dream ticket when it hit me. A McCain/Paul ticket would be a winner. Don’t believe me? Just look at the polls. Ron Paul got 15% of the votes in Oregon the other day. In an election that is going to be pretty close, McCain is going to need every vote he can muster to win and Paul might have those votes.
So lets just go along with this idea that there would be a McCain/Paul ticket in November and by some act of God, they actually won the election. If this happened what would our country be like?
Well, in my eyes, Paul’s libertarian views mixed with McCain’s somewhat liberal views would create an almost conservative policy.
For example, on immigration McCain basically wants amnesty and Paul doesn’t, hopefully something could be reached that would lean to a more conservative side.
Another reason I want to see them in office together would be that Paul would be a loose canon. While McCain seems to be constantly wanting to please the other side and not offend them, Paul never did care what people thought. He always spoke his mind and even would call his opponents dead wrong.
Plus they are both old and them together would remind me of the movie “Grumpy Old Men.” I would love to see them both constantly arguing with eachother over policy in public and then there would be times when McCain would have to physically restrain Paul from attacking a reporter when they asked a stupid question. Can’t you see that happening?
You can’t tell me that you don’t laugh when you imagine them both running the country.
Anyways, that thought brought a smile to my face in an election season wrought with constant disappointments. What VP choices (on either side) have brought smiles to your faces?
South Carolina Rep. Jeff Duncan has a good blog post about why he, as a conservative, cannot support this cigarette tax hike. Here is a quit excerpt from the article:
We stand at a crossroads in South Carolina as we debate the Governor’s Veto of the Cigarette Tax. There are some things that the proponents of a cigarette tax are not telling you. While I firmly agree that reducing smoking is a good idea for the citizens of this state, I think a government using its power of taxation to change behaviors is a slippery slope to it using taxation to punish unpopular activities.
The argument that it will be a deterrence to underage smoking is a ruse used to gain support. If we want to be serious about underage smoking, then let us adopt policies in this state that really penalize youthful offenders.
I would recommend reading the rest.
Being a conservative, I tend to agree that taxes aren’t the way to go for things like this. The idea that this is a slippery slope is a very real idea. Back during the midterm elections in 2006, a proposition came up about whether or not to raise the cigarette tax in Missouri and I voted against it. This ended up being the only result I was happy about.
Anywho, the slippery slope idea means that the government might start with a tax on cigarettes, which everyone mostly agrees are bad for you, but then they will start taxing other things like fast food or carbon emissions (anthropological global warming is a bunch of junk science by the way).
So instead of taxation, there are other ways like education to get people to stop smoking. I’m not one for a complete ban though. I have faith that humans are pretty smart creatures. They should know that if you smoke 3 packs a day you are in fact addicted and that addiction might end up costing you your life. As long as you aren’t affecting anyone else (aka second hand smoke, etc.), I feel it is your right to smoke yourself into oblivion.
As long as the information is out there for people to know of the risks and there are age requirements (I don’t feel that 12 year olds have the reasoning or foresight to see the long term consequences), than I don’t think the government should be trying to make them stop.
Now does this idea extend the people who say it is there right to smoke marijuana? Hmmm…I don’t know. The side affects of pot seem to have more of a chance of affecting people other than just the smoker (driving while high?).
Anyways, this post wasn’t supposed to be this long. I just wanted to point out Rep. Duncan’s stance against raising the cigarette tax and I hope every conservative will stand behind his decision.
Obama really needs to keep a pocket dictionary so when he drops words like “preconditions” he knows what they mean. Now, Obama is backpedaling about his whole meeting countries like Iran “without preconditions.” It seems that President Ahmadinejad doesn’t meet the “conditions” to get a meeting.
Democrat Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said on Monday that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Obama, the Democratic Party front-runner vying to face Republican Sen. John McCain in the November race for the White House, has said he was willing to meet with leaders of countries such as Iran, Syria, Cuba and Venezuela without preconditions.
McCain has criticized that view, saying that sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad would give the Iranian president a spotlight and send the wrong signal to U.S. allies such as Israel.
Iran does not recognize Israel’s existence and Ahmadinejad has called the country a “stinking corpse.”
Oh Obama, you really make it too easy for us.
Well, last night we had some pretty severe storms in and around the St. Louis area. Along with the sky seemingly being constantly alight with lightening, we got some pretty good sized hail. To prove how much I care about my readers, I braved this weather just to get you some pictures of the hail that probably dented a few cars around the neighborhood.
It also looks like we aren’t done with the crazy weather yet either so maybe you will get some more pictures later on.
