Blogroll

ConservativeNC Blogroll

3/12/10, Inhofe: Time to freeze spending »»

3/12/10, Pelosi Proclaims Maddow 'Nonpartisan,' But the Syrupy Interview and Tribute Insists Otherwise »»

Despite what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said to MSNBC?s Rachel Maddow in an interview last night ? "I know you`re nonpartisan" ? Maddow very predictably helped Pelosi dismiss any responsibility for the Speaker in the Eric Massa ethics investigation.

Maddow didn?t act like a skeptical Tim Russert, asking if Pelosi sounds exactly the opposite of her remarks in 2006, assuming Speaker Dennis Hastert cravenly overlooked the allegations of Mark Foley's sexual misconduct. Instead, she embraced Pelosi?s line that Republican focus on Massa was "trying to distract from the endgame on health reform." Maddow declared her nostrils had found it:

You can almost smell how excited Republicans were to try to make this an anti-Democratic leadership issue today. They were very excited about that prospect for some number of minutes this afternoon. And for some of those minutes, I was actually inside the U.S. Capitol and I swear you could smell it in there.

But any attempt to make this a really big political stink today seems to have fizzled out rather quickly. Nice try, though.

As she opened her show Maddow compared "the kerfuffle over former Congressman Eric Massa`s resignation" as nothing compared to "accountability for the Bush administration?s occasional cackling, gleeful trampling of the Constitution." This is how the two ultraliberal ladies discussed the Massa case:

MADDOW: So, just to be clear, that earlier, several months ago allegation, October, I believe, not an allegation --

PELOSI: Yes.

MADDOW: -- but rather that something was referred to staffers in your office, member services director, but --

PELOSI: Yes, a staffer.

MADDOW: A staffer in your office but it was not something that your staff believed rose to the level of an allegation.

PELOSI: Right. There are all kinds of articles that are written about many members in the Congress. And I don`t think we want to get to that place.

Besides I served on the ethics committee for seven years. When I say served, it was almost like a sentence because it`s very tough duty and I commend the people who serve there and the service they provide to the Congress. But the last thing we would have wanted than was any intervention from the speaker`s office. There`s an appropriate way for an allegation to be sent to the ethics committee and it shouldn`t be something that is the speaker`s office is the melting -- or the mixing pot.

MADDOW: Are you troubled though now -- I mean, Congressman Massa?s behavior since he -- around the time that he resigned and since he resigned -- has been inconsistent. He initially, for example, made an allegation that he was being forced out because he was a vote against health care. And then he recanted that allegation. He`s made some other inconsistent statements.

But we?re left with the impression that he may have behaved inappropriately toward people who worked for him and toward other people who work in this building.

PELOSI: That?s up to the ethics committee to investigate. But the fact is, you started this conversation in the right way. It?s another subject that people would like to be a distraction. I will not take my eye off the ball, which is to pass health care reform right now and at this time to build support for what we are doing.

The people like to mix those two. Not you, but the Republicans. You're never to be taken for one of them. But I know you`re nonpartisan. But in any event, the -- for me, I`m not paying a lot of attention to some of that. It`s appropriately being dealt with where it`s being dealt with.

But that?s not what Pelosi said in the Foley case on the October 3, 2006 NBC Nightly News, as she suggested Speaker Hastert was going soft on perverts: "They held this closely. They shared it among themselves. They did not act to protect the children. They're all responsible."

After her monologue on the political cologne of the Republicans on Capitol Hill, Maddow grew lyrical in her praise of Pelosi and her "raw" effectiveness:

MADDOW: Even nonpartisans, even people very opposed to Nancy Pelosi politically can see that she has been one of the most effective speakers of the House in modern history. And when you separate out her track record from that of the 111th Congress as a whole, her raw effectiveness really does jump out at you.

Under Pelosi, the House has passed all of the major planks of President Obama's first year legislative agenda. They passed the stimulus. They passed the budget. They passed the health reform. They passed cap-and-trade. They even passed Wall Street reform.

The Senate, however, is another story. The Senate is like a never-ending busy signal over there. Nothing gets through.

As we have reported before, at least 290 pieces of legislation passed by the House of Representatives this Congress, including some big ones, are still sitting in the Senate awaiting action. There?s nothing Speaker Pelosi can do about that. But she has made known her frustration with the broken Senate.

[Hat tip: Will T.]

3/12/10, Sean Penn Kicks Out Reporter for Challenging Him on 'Rectal Cancer' Remark »»

3/12/10, IN THE MAIL: War Stories: The Causes and Consequences of Public Views of War. ? »»

3/12/10, Nancy Pelosi: Un-merry maid; Update: Pushing March 21 Demcare deadline, no public option through reconciliation »»

Scroll for updates…Pelosi pushes for 3/21 Demcare deadline, rejects public option via reconciliation…

Photoshop: Ray D.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi?s deficient cleaning service
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

?Maybe it will take a woman to clean up the House,? Nancy Pelosi boasted before the 2006 mid-term elections and over again. Looks like those XX chromosomes didn?t give her much advantage over the old cleaning crew. The swamp she was supposed to drain is overflowing. And less than four years after a sordid sexual predation scandal involving a creepy congressman rocked the Republican Party, a sordid sexual predation scandal involving a creepy congressman is now rocking the Democrat Party.

The same questions that dogged House leaders then are dogging House Speaker Pelosi now: What did she and her staff know and when did they know it?

On Thursday afternoon, by a vote of 402-1, the House overwhelmingly passed a privileged resolution offered by the Republican leadership demanding a formal House Ethics Committee investigation of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her (mis)handling of harassment allegations concerning disgraced former New York Rep. Eric Massa. The soft-on-corruption ethics panel (see under ?Rangel, Charlie?) had decided to shut down its investigation after Massa abruptly resigned on Monday.

But with reports piling up on how Massa kept a Capitol Hill playhouse filled with young, low-paid male staffers and how Pelosi?s office had fielded complaints of his bizarre and inappropriate behavior back in October, the House decided to pry the lid back open and put a stop to what the resolution calls the ?public ridicule? that the seeming cover-up has invited.

Housecleaner Pelosi cannot be pleased by the second-guessing of her handiwork. Color her an un-merry maid. Even Democrat Rep. Patrick Kennedy, fresh from his raving House floor meltdown over media coverage of the Massa mess, voted for the GOP-initiated House resolution. Finally: Bipartisanship we can believe in!

With the exception of lone House Democrat Rep. Chaka Fattah who voted ?no? and 27 members (including those who sit on the House Ethics Committee) who voted ?present? or ?not voting,? every other member of Pelosi?s House supported the petition to direct the Committee on Standards of Official to investigate fully ?which House Democratic leaders and members of their respective staffs had knowledge prior to March 3, 2010 of the aforementioned allegations concerning Mr. Massa, and what actions each leader and staffer having any such knowledge took after learning of the allegations.? [The demand will now be referred to the Ethics Committee.]

The resolution stipulates that ?numerous confusing and conflicting media reports that House Democratic leaders knew about, and may have failed to handle appropriately, allegations that Rep. Massa was sexually harassing his own employees have raised serious and legitimate questions about what Speaker Pelosi as well as other Democratic leaders and their respective staffs were told, and what those individuals did with the information in their possession.?

Democrat Rep. Barney Frank, who earned a House Ethics Committee slap on the wrist in 1990 after using his congressional office to fix parking tickets for male prostitute Steven Gobie, was one of those leaders in the know. After voting for the resolution, he disclosed for the first time that Massa had invited one of his young staffers to dinner. ?Although this was not an ethical violation,? Frank said in a published statement, one of his senior staffers who was informed of the dinner alerted former Rep. Massa?s Chief of Staff, Joe Racalto.

In other words: Frank?s office knew it smelled illicit. And Barney Frank would know.

Racalto went on to contact Pelosi?s office directly in October. Tick, tick, tick. Five months later, in the wake of Massa?s own self-professed proclivity for tickle parties and victim/witness accounts of Massa?s alleged sexual assaults on his Navy underlings, Pelosi is pooh-poohing the scandal: ?I have a job to do and not to be the receiver of rumors.? Translation: Don?t bother me with concerns about my members? indiscretions. I?m busy. How quickly we?ve accelerated from the ?most ethical? House ever to ?see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.?

There was a time when Pelosi the protector held House leaders to the highest standards and expectations in guarding young people working on Capitol Hill. During the GOP Mark Foley scandal, she inveighed: ?The children who work as Pages in the Congress are Members? special trust. Statements by the Republican Leadership indicate that they violated this trust when they were made aware of the Internet stalking of an underage Page by Mr. Foley and covered it up for six months to a year.?

Yet, she remains silent on the plight of the twentysomethings whom Massa was keeping house with under circumstances that rate an Ick Factor of 10+. Massa?s alleged targets are someone?s children, too.

Deflecting accountability for her own office?s violations of trust, Pelosi feigned sympathy for Massa and attributed his impaired ethical judgment to his medical condition (he has cancer). ?Poor baby,? she said through gritted teeth. He?s ?a very sick person.? So, what?s Pelosi?s excuse?

***

Update 11:30am Eastern. Pelosi made a brief press appearance to appear in command of the health care reform debate. She said the House would take as long as it needed…and then floated a March 21 deadline, on which she said she was happy Obama would be in attendance to sign a bill. Says public option will not be in this bill. Addressed parliamentary debate tussle from yesterday and asserted that “once we pass the Senate bill, it will be law.” Talked about student loan nationalization as part of reconciliation package. “In order for the Senate to do reconciliation, President must first sign the bill.”

3/12/10, Younger voters trending anti-abortion »»

3/12/10, DANA CARVEY AS OBAMA on Leno?. »»

3/12/10, Gutierrez: 'I Can't Support' Health Care Bill With Current Immigration Provisions »»

3/12/10, Boehner Promises GOP Will Run On Repealing HCR: 'You Can Bet On It' »»

3/12/10, Forgetful Eric »»

3/12/10, Panic at the Team O: Asia jaunt delayed for Demcare »»

The No-mentum is getting to the White House. News is breaking out all over that President Obama will be delaying his trip to Asia from Thursday to March 21. It’s also being reported that the First Lady and his daughters, who had planned to accompany him, will no longer be traveling with him. Jake Tapper writes:

“The President will delay leaving for Indonesia and Australia – will now leave Sunday – the First Lady and the girls will not be on the trip,? White House press secretary Robert Gibbs sent out on twitter this morning.

Gibbs had expressed irritation yesterday with a question during the daily press briefing about this trip being something of a vacation for the family, with Sasha and Malia on spring break.

?It?s not a vacation at all,? he said back to a reporter.

Touchy, touchy.

***

The latest on the Demcare devolution…

NYT headline: Democrats Struggle to Finish Health Bill

TPM: MA Dem. Michael Capuano leaning no

Pollsters Patrick H. Caddell and Douglas E. Schoen: You’re on the march of folly, Dems

***

Ed Morrissey reminds us what happened last time Obama went to Asia:

He doesn?t have the votes. As with Nancy Pelosi?s bravado, the deadline turned out to be a façade. If they had the votes, the bill would be on the floor now. Not only do they not have the votes now, it seems likely they won?t have the votes next week, either ? which is why Obama?s pushing back his long-awaited trip to Indonesia.

This could also be a lesson learned by the White House. Last year, while Congress writhed in agony over ObamaCare, the President took time out to tour Asia ? and came back with nothing for the effort but a bow to Japanese Emperor Akihito. Obama took a tremendous amount of criticism for absenting himself for a sightseeing tour while leaving Democrats in Congress to do his dirty work. If they don?t have the votes by March 21st, Obama may have to reconsider the trip altogether.

***

The open-borders caucus looks like it’s really going to bolt, via The Hill:

The healthcare bill’s immigration provisions are enough to spur Hispanic members of Congress to vote against it, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) said Thursday.

Gutierrez, a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC) in which he serves as chairman of its Immigration Task Force, said the caucus still has concerns over the extent to which the healthcare bill excludes illegal immigrants as well as legal residents from receiving benefits in the healthcare plan.

“They are enough to say I can’t support this bill,” Gutierrez said during an appearance on MSNBC.

Gutierrez and other members of the CHC to express concerns about the immigration provisions in the bill, about which they’ve begun to speak out more forcefully as a vote on healthcare approaches.

The Illinois congressman, who was an early supporter of President Barack Obama’s run for the Oval Office, said that the immigration provisions were very unlike the president, and suggested someone in the White House had urged him to back more stringent provisions on immigration.

3/12/10, Despicable »»

3/12/10, Foggy Panorama »»

3/12/10, Have You Seen Our Congressman? (A Study in Cowardice) »»

3/10/10, The Quotable Stupak on Health Care and Abortion »»

3/8/10, Who says that the tea parties aren't winning elections? »»

3/8/10, 2010: Beat the Arrogant Establishment »»

After the March 2nd Texas primary, CNN proclaimed "Tea party changes tone, but not outcome of Texas primary." Politico's Jonathan Martin asks, "Is the tea party movement a paper tiger?" Locally, a San Angelo, Texas paper framed the result as "GOP incumbents held seats against Tea Party."

This is a classic straw man, and a dramatic misreading of the tea party's political objectives.

Somehow, national media types got it into their heads that the tea party movement was the magic elixer for the kinds of unknown, underfunded and largely unskilled candidates who run in every race to claim the mantle of "tea party candidate" and knock off incumbents. A perusal of the Texas results at the Congressional level shows that the over/under for random, unknown unchallengers (a/k/a "tea party candidates") to incumbents was about 14%. This is basically the "none of the above" vote that materializes in every primary. When a prohibitive frontrunner has a semi-credible challenger, the frontrunner usually wins 70-30. Even when the challenger is unknown or unacceptable, 15 or 20 percent is doable. Convicted felon Lyndon LaRouche got that in some Democratic primaries against Bill Clinton in '96.

Beyond that, the subtext is also that the tea party empowers uniquely conservative candidates, with Rubio/Crist as the model for every primary in the country.

Again, no.

It's clear that there is a lot more primary activity than there was in '06 and '08, largely because the prospects of getting elected as a Republican this year are so good. And in those primaries, proclaiming oneself a "tea party candidate" is about as fashionable as proclaiming oneself a "social media expert."

Going state by state and district by district, the case for conservative ascendancy in primaries is muddled at best. For every Rubio/Crist, there is a Mark Kirk walk-in-the-park. The '08 primaries showed that Republican primary voters are if nothing else pragmatic.

A few basic misconceptions underlie the expectation that the more conservative the primary candidate, the better their chances are at winning. And the main one is that conservatives are uniquely advantaged this year because the tea parties show the party is moving right.

This notion would require one to believe that the grassroots base of the GOP -- not its leaders, but its base -- was somehow un-conservative prior to '09 and '10. There's no evidence for that. Fueled by Rush Limbaugh and talk radio, 1994 was a conservative year. In fact, 1994 probably marked the end of the shift in the ascendancy of conservatives over moderates in Republican grassroots politics, a shift that started with Goldwater. Ever since '94, the ideological change within the Republican Party has been marginal at best.

What has changed in the last two years, is that Republicans are now unshackled from having to defend the Bush Administration and the mood of the country, and inside the Republican Party in particular, has grown more solidly anti-establishment. Those changes alone can explain the emergence of the tea party movement.

While the case for conservative ascendancy in primaries is muddled, what isn't muddled is this: run as the milquetoast candidate of the arrogant establishment, and you lose.

Practically every electorally relevant example points in this direction.

NY-23? Check.

Florida Senate? Check.

Massachusetts? Check.

Texas Governor? Check.

In Texas, the tea party candidate was not Debra Medina. It was Rick Perry, whose political fortunes were revived around the Tax Day tea parties last year. That points to a movement that is much more broadly relevant than the marginal nutjob candidacies that media is holding up as an example of the movement's failures. I know that one can point to Medina strength among the organizers -- and I've certainly played up the role Ron Paul's brigades have played in that effort -- but there is a convincing case that the rank-and-file attendees and their compatriots who followed from the radio dial or Fox News were solidly with Perry. And that's who matters when delivering votes in a primary, as opposed to a straw poll.

But more importantly, the movement was aligned against Kay Bailey Hutchison, who barely disguised her sense of entitlement at holding not one, but two statewide offices. Strike one was trying to elbow aside Perry with a blatant "It's my turn" appeal not to run again, and then going ahead with a challenge. Strikes two and three were the Texas Two-Step around resigning her office, which, quelle surprise, will likely end up with Hutchison holding on to public office against her word.

The KBH fall is of a piece with the staggering fall of "All About Charlie" Crist, who ran on a sense of entitlement before he finished the job voters elected him to do. Only a few words need to be said about Charlie Crist: pride before the fall.

And NY-23 was a similar case of an arrogant establishment attempting to oppose its will against that of primary voters, and getting pwned in the process.

Do you see a pattern here?

Yes, each of these cases was one of a "conservative" beating a "moderate" -- but each also had the essential ingredient of a particularly noxious stench of self-entitlement on the part of the losers.

As ever, public servants need to place the emphasis on the latter part of that title: servant. Those advantaged by a long career of winning elections need to be particularly humble and even servile to the will of the electorate, especially in this environment. Votes cannot be assumed. They must be earned.

There is no easy template for tea party victory in a Republican primary. Saying you are Marco Rubio does not make you Marco Rubio. Rubio's success is due as much to Crist's arrogance and the movement-like aura Rubio has been able to build around himself as it is to a simple ideological contrast. Those whose job it is to run and win elections quickly learn that attributes -- those pesky personal qualities like honesty, integrity, intelligence, and authenticity -- matter a whole lot more than issues, even in primaries. This is not diminish the importance of principle but to acknowledge the reality that it alone is not enough, and having a good, plausible candidate, campaign, and message still matters a whole lot.

Average:

Your rating: None Average: 5 (1 vote)

3/6/10, The World's Healthiest Dessert? »»

3/6/10, 7 Dumbest Ways to Accessorize Your Car »»

3/5/10, Daniel Pollitt rests at last »»

3/5/10, One Size Doesn?t Fit All for Stem Cells »»

2/28/10, Reader Mail: Oil/Gas Exploration Points by Kent Misegades »»

2/25/10, NAACP: "Don't Resegregate Our Schools" »»

2/11/10, Free Beer! »»

2/3/10, Here's a little something for those who don't think health care "reform" is toast »»

2/1/10, Bad News for the "Just Give Them Some Condoms" Crowd »»

1/4/10, New day, new blog »»

1/3/10, The prisoner »»

I am a moderate claustrophobe, so this story about how many unemployed or underemployed Japanese have been reduced to living in slots in the wall ("capsule hotels") literally made me shiver. And then Ross Douthat directed me to Tony Judt's essay about living with Lou Gehrig's disease. Contemplate the horror of this man's life:

In effect, ALS constitutes progressive imprisonment without parole. ... By my present stage of decline, I am thus effectively quadriplegic. With extraordinary effort I can move my right hand a little and can adduct my left arm some six inches across my chest. My legs, although they will lock when upright long enough to allow a nurse to transfer me from one chair to another, cannot bear my weight and only one of them has any autonomous movement left in it. Thus when legs or arms are set in a given position, there they remain until someone moves them for me. The same is true of my torso, with the result that backache from inertia and pressure is a chronic irritation. Having no use of my arms, I cannot scratch an itch, adjust my spectacles, remove food particles from my teeth, or anything else that--as a moment's reflection will confirm--we all do dozens of times a day. To say the least, I am utterly and completely dependent upon the kindness of strangers (and anyone else).

During the day I can at least request a scratch, an adjustment, a drink, or simply a gratuitous re-placement of my limbs--since enforced stillness for hours on end is not only physically uncomfortable but psychologically close to intolerable. It is not as though you lose the desire to stretch, to bend, to stand or lie or run or even exercise. But when the urge comes over you there is nothing--nothing--that you can do except seek some tiny substitute or else find a way to suppress the thought and the accompanying muscle memory.

But then comes the night. I leave bedtime until the last possible moment compatible with my nurse's need for sleep. Once I have been "prepared" for bed I am rolled into the bedroom in the wheelchair where I have spent the past eighteen hours. With some difficulty (despite my reduced height, mass, and bulk I am still a substantial dead weight for even a strong man to shift) I am maneuvered onto my cot. I am sat upright at an angle of some 110° and wedged into place with folded towels and pillows, my left leg in particular turned out ballet-like to compensate for its propensity to collapse inward. This process requires considerable concentration. If I allow a stray limb to be mis-placed, or fail to insist on having my midriff carefully aligned with legs and head, I shall suffer the agonies of the damned later in the night.

I am then covered, my hands placed outside the blanket to afford me the illusion of mobility but wrapped nonetheless since--like the rest of me--they now suffer from a permanent sensation of cold. I am offered a final scratch on any of a dozen itchy spots from hairline to toe; the Bi-Pap breathing device in my nose is adjusted to a necessarily uncomfortable level of tightness to ensure that it does not slip in the night; my glasses are removed...and there I lie: trussed, myopic, and motionless like a modern-day mummy, alone in my corporeal prison, accompanied for the rest of the night only by my thoughts.

Of course, I do have access to help if I need it. Since I can't move a muscle, save only my neck and head, my communication device is a baby's intercom at my bedside, left permanently on so that a mere call from me will bring assistance. In the early stages of my disease the temptation to call out for help was almost irresistible: every muscle felt in need of movement, every inch of skin itched, my bladder found mysterious ways to refill itself in the night and thus require relief, and in general I felt a desperate need for the reassurance of light, company, and the simple comforts of human intercourse. By now, however, I have learned to forgo this most nights, finding solace and recourse in my own thoughts.

The latter, though I say it myself, is no small undertaking. Ask yourself how often you move in the night. I don't mean change location altogether (e.g., to go to the bathroom, though that too): merely how often you shift a hand, a foot; how frequently you scratch assorted body parts before dropping off; how unselfconsciously you alter position very slightly to find the most comfortable one. Imagine for a moment that you had been obliged instead to lie absolutely motionless on your back--by no means the best sleeping position, but the only one I can tolerate--for seven unbroken hours and constrained to come up with ways to render this Calvary tolerable not just for one night but for the rest of your life.

I cannot imagine what that brave man is living through. I literally cannot imagine it -- the psychological horror is too great for me, with my claustrophobia, to contemplate. God help him and comfort him through this endless crucifixion. Read Judt's entire essay for a glimpse at the nobility of the human spirit.

Read this post »

11/3/09, Election Day 2009: A National Party No More? »»

“Uncivil war,” they’re calling it.

Family issues, more like.

The political mayhem surrounding New York’s 23rd House District special election has reached a crescendo, here on this final day of the campaign. November 3, 2009, is the day of reckoning for a grassroots conservative base eager to flex its muscle and make a statement about the future of the Republican Party going forth to the nationwide 2010 elections and beyond.

Commentators and observers of all stripes and sides have weighed in on the race, which proves to be a harbinger of things soon to come. Where they differ on is what exactly is soon to come. Is it the impending decline and relegation of the GOP to a permanent minority? Or is it, as those in the “tea party” movement see it, the beginning of a precipitous ideological takeback in the Republican Party of Reagan-ite/1994 proportions?

What’s most striking is the giddiness and dead-set certainty of both Democrats and ~~Republicans~~ conservatives in the rightness of their vantage points on the issue. Perhaps, as most conservatives would love to proclaim, “Dede Scozzafava is merely the first casualty of this war.” Perhaps NY-23 is just the beginning of “a nightmare scenario for Republican Party officials.” But therein lies the inherent problem with such lines of reasoning.

Democrats falsely assume that the strength of the Republican Party lies in the successes and failures of its “officials.” Sadly, NY-23 has shown that the NRCC, RNC, and MSM have joined the left in underestimating the raw power of the conservative (notice, not Republican) electorate. As if they needed reminding: the “Republican right” isn’t really Republican at all, at least not as much as it is ideologically conservative. As hard as it is for the D.C.-West Coast axis to believe, it appears that there may yet remain an American political party that is not subject to the whims of its talking head elites and special interest groups but that is truly of, by, and for the people who comprise it.

It’s quite a stretch to say that Hoffman-Scozzafava signals a movement to “purge” moderates from the party. Scozzafava was no moderate. Charlie Crist is a moderate. A moderate Republican who believes in card check and free-willy government spending is no moderate and certainly is no Republican. So this notion that conservatives are to blame for the death of “Big Tent” Republicanism is patently absurd.

If anything, it’s Scozzafava that has done the most damage to moderates in the Republican party by endorsing the Democratic candidate. Her bewildering move only proves her detractors right and only further cements the seeds of distrust in conservatives nationwide about other Republican moderates, of whom she claimed to be a part.

The AP is already pre-spinning a potential Election Day sweep by the Republicans as a moot point. No surprise there, but just as moot is the idea that NY-23 represents the beginning of the end for a bruised and battered Republican Party.

10/23/09, A Brief Hiatus »»

1/27/09, Tailpipe Emissions and NC: Ignore ?California-Envy? »»

President Obama has directed the EPA to reconsider California’s application for a waiver from federal tailpipe emission standards for cars and trucks. California is seeking to impose tougher standards than what is required under the federal Clean Air Act (CAA).

Under the CAA, only California can seek a waiver from federal motor vehicle standards (so long as their regulations exceed federal standards). Once California’s waiver has been granted, then other states can adopt California’s more stringent standards.

About a year ago, the EPA had denied California’s request for a waiver, explaining:

California?s current waiver request is distinct from all prior requests. Previous waiver petitions covered pollutants that predominantly impacted local and regional air quality. Greenhouse gases are fundamentally global in nature, which is unlike the other air pollutants covered by prior California waiver requests. These gases contribute to the challenge of global climate change affecting every state in the union. Therefore, according to the criteria in section 209 of the Clean Air Act, EPA did not find that separate California standards are needed to ?meet compelling and extraordinary conditions.?

Last year, some North Carolina legislators were trying to adopt California’s standards, even though it wouldn’t have been legal. The state’s Climate Action Plan Advisory Group (CAPAG), which was basically gamed to reach results that DENR and its “consultant” wanted, recommended that the California standard be adopted. If the waiver is granted, expect a big push to adopt California’s standards.

Expect the fleet mix to change in the state (i.e. what kind of cars are available) as well as cars to cost a lot more money (anywhere from $1,000-$3,000 more). These are just some of the costs. The benefit of such a policy would be non-existent.

The “father” of global warming hysteria, Dr, James Hansen, stated the following in trial testimony (link to a PPT file–also see this link)

Q: ?Have you modeled the CO2 emission savings that would result if only Vermont and New York were to implement the AB 1493 regulation [California’s regulations]??

Hansen’s Answer: ?I haven’t modeled that. It would not be difficult to do it.?

Q: ?Okay. Well, you have that model, one of the best in the country that you’ve got, correct??

Hansen’s Answer: ?Well, I wouldn’t run a model with such a very small change, because then you’re wasting computer time, because you do have the problem of finding a signal when compared to the natural variability of the climate.?

Q: ?You never modeled — let’s move past Vermont and New York. Let’s say that it’s all 11 states that have adopted the regulation. Have you modeled that? Have you found the computer time or the time to model the total CO2 emission saving in all of the states that adopted the regulation –?

Hansen’s Answer: ?No. Because we try to do useful things.?

If California gets the waiver and decides it doesn’t care about its economy or its citizens (which it doesn’t from its typical actions), then let it destroy itself. Some North Carolina legislators may have “California-envy,” but the legislature shouldn’t hurt the state’s citizens to appease a bunch of extremists.

1/14/09, Don?t Mess with Cats or Ecosystems »»

3/12/10, N.C. Democrats Jettison Gas Tax Relief »»

3/12/10, Easley Scandal Fallout Continues »»

3/12/10, Senator Burr Files Reelection Paperwork »»

3/12/10, Senator Burr Statement about the Sudden Termination of MyCAA »»

3/12/10, Blog moved to new location »»

3/12/10, HOW PELOSI GETS HER SHEEP TO FOLLOW HER »»

3/12/10, ACORN : The Saga Continues »»

3/12/10, Corey Thompson Announces Run For County Commission At-Large »»

COREY THOMPSON

Candidate for Mecklenburg County Commission At-Large

www.coreythompson.us

PRESS RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ? FEBRUARY 11, 2010

?CMS Teacher Pledges To ?Do More? In Filing For County Commission?

Charlotte, NC- Corey Thompson, a 34 year old Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools teacher, has announced his candidacy for the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners. Thompson plans to file as an At-Large candidate on Monday, February 15^th, at 4:15 PM at the Mecklenburg Board of Elections. This is the first time that Thompson has run for an elected office.

?I believe that the citizens of Mecklenburg County are looking for leaders who can identify with their day-to-day struggles, who will remain accountable to the public, and can restore trust in our elected officials. I believe that is exactly the type of leadership I can provide,? Thompson said.

The filing on Monday will serve a purpose other than just submitting the appropriate paperwork and fees to the Board of Elections. Thompson also plans to hold a school supplies drive in conjunction with making his candidacy official. In doing so, Thompson wants to raise awareness about his message of community involvement in helping solve problems throughout the county.

Thompson added ?In the wake of the current economic recession, our county leaders have had to make tough decisions in shaping our budget, especially in regard to education. County Manager Harry Jones recently stated that we all need to be prepared to ?do less, with less? in the coming days. I believe that the hard-working citizens of this community are growing tired of waiting on the government to solve their problems. That?s why I?m pledging to ?do more? with the help of the people, because I am confident that everyday citizens can be far more effective than a government with misguided priorities.?

School supply contributions can be dropped off to Thompson?s campaign team between 4:00-5:00 PM Monday in the Board of Elections parking lot, located at 741 Kenilworth Avenue. Those items collected will be donated to Classroom Central on behalf of the people of Mecklenburg County. Thompson will also make brief remarks to family, friends, and supporters after filing.

Thompson and his wife Jenny, also a CMS teacher, are natives of Mecklenburg County. The couple are proud parents of a 2 year old son named Charlie. Corey is a graduate of The Citadel, and has held numerous leadership roles in local organizations.

Thompson concluded with a final challenge: ?I want people to ask themselves one question. Is Mecklenburg County better off today than she was two years ago? If the answer to that question is ?no,? then I?m asking for the opportunity to earn your trust and your vote to help our community get back on a path toward prosperity. I believe in the spirit of Mecklenburg. I believe in our citizens, and with their help, I am confident that our best days are ahead of us.?

3/12/10, OK. Let's Talk Streetcar »»

I attended the City Council meeting last night for the main purpose of listening to the streetcar debate first-hand. It was about what I expected to hear, considering the makeup of the Council, but troubling, reckless, and a misguided Olympic-sized leap in the wrong direction.

Let's go over some things I jotted down from the presentation:

- The $25 million federal grant cannot be used for planning or design. It can be used for construction, right-of-way, and vehicles. However, the project must enter construction within 18 months. Thus, you get the 3-year figure from the Observer article.

- The total project cost is $37 million. On top of that, there is an annual operating cost of $1.5 million. that's assuming, of course, the project is on budget. How often does that happen? If you need an example, we just opened a light rail line in 2007 that came in over 200% of the projected cost.

- The ridership numbers are awfully low, the presentation stated it was 950 per day. Warren Cooksey pointed this out and I think it gave most sane audience members pause.

- No savings on CATS routes #7, #9, or the Gold Rush Red. So the streetcar is not replacing anything. Don't worry, it gets better...

- CATS currently has the Gamerco cars to use, the newer Siemens cars would be $8 million to buy new. Looks like CATS is using the ones already in existence.

- $12 million in local money is being used to fund the project, taken from 4 different city sources. The $1.5 million will come from the general fund starting in fiscal year 2013.

Susan Burgess delivered this gem, saying "we can afford this!" referring to the $12 million. Not that she would answer the question of what that $12 million could've been used for that would really help the area like fixing potholes, finishing backed up sidewalk projects, or keeping the integrity of the comprehensive transportation plan intact without pitting the Northeast Rail Line and the commuter North Line against each other.

Another bonus was State Senator Malcolm Graham attending and talking about the benefits of this thing, small wonder of course since he was on the streetcar committee and just so happened to advocate this plan, which takes the state money out of the equation and puts a bigger burden on the city government. The rail funding plan - 50% federal, 25% from the state and 25% from the city is now 2/3rds federal and 1/3 local. Anthony Foxx actually said this means for dollar we contribute, the federal government is contributing 2. Well, DUH. Foxx was playing this off as a good thing, when it is anything but. The state has no money, the federal government has no money, and apparently the city has $12 million sitting around that has to be spent on something.

The acceleration of the streetcar is, primarily, the City Council delivering on the Foxx campaign platform. While it's intended to build the eastern and western sides of the city, the only thing being paid for right now is still uptown as it stretches from the Transportation Center to Presbyterian Hospital. THAT'S THE ONLY THING BEING PAID FOR!

3 years out, let's assume that somehow everything has gone according to plan. Like Hillary Clinton, suspend your disbelief for a minute and follow me. 3 years from now, the debate will rage about whether to continue going west towards Beatties Ford, or bring the line to Cental Avenue and Eastland Mall. How are we going to solve this one, guys? There is no guarantee of a federal or even a state grant or funding source to pay for the next leg. At this point, we've spent the last 3 years elevating this project above a new rail line. The Northeast Line, which should be in the well into development, has not started. The city is divided and we have no direction or leadership. What was once a comprehensive plan is in tatters.

Is this what we want for Charlotte? A streetcar that doesn't replace anything and isn't funded beyond the 1.5 miles? We're going to feel this decision for a long time to come.

3/12/10, Five Lies About The American Economy »»

3/12/10, Radicalizing Civil Rights »»

3/12/10, Week in Review 3/1/10 - 3/6/10 »»

3/12/10, Editorial Regarding the Proposed High Speed Rail »»

3/12/10, NCGOP Chairman's Race »»

The race for NCGOP Chairman has changed some and it is now down to two people - Chad Adams and Tom Fetzer. I have thought long and hard about this race and have now made up my mind. Before, giving my decision I want to lay out the race as I see it and tell why I have decided the way I have.

First , let's consider the candidacy of Tom Fetzer. Tom is a solid conservative who knows his way around the political structure and the hierarchy. He was elected Mayor of Raleigh which is a big accomplishment for a Republican. Tom did a great job as Mayor and proved to be what he said he was. Tom would make a great US Senator or Congressman. He would probably even make a great Governor of this state. He would be a prolific fundraiser as state chairman and he would be well accepted by the Washington based RNC. He has good conections in Washington ad he would do a great job leading the party in the reelection battle for Richard Burr, a god friend of Tom's.

Chad Adams in his role with the John Locke Foundation allowed him to eastablish himself as a leader. Chad had much contact with the grassroots of the partyy throughout the state and he proved to effective at bringing the mkessage of the John Locke Foundation to them. He has energy and a passion for restoring the party. He would likely need help raising the funds needed but he is committed to raising the funds the party needs. He is not as well known by the RNC crowd as Tom is but he has the personality and the style to get along and to be accepted. He has good conections with the grassroots of the party in North Carolina.

I think the bottom line in this race is the need for the new Chairman to renergize the base of the party throughout the state and to listen to the activists who get things done for the party. The grassroots of the NCGOP have become dissatified and they feel that the state party pays more attention to what Washington wants that what the state needs. The members of the State Executive Committee feels that the meetings are designed to keep them from saying what they want and to push a preformed agenda down their throats regardless of what the committee thinks. In defense of the leadership, a big part of that problem lies with members of the committee but that is a topic for another day. With this in mind, the biggest Tom Fetzer has is that he will be percieved as a Washington Chairman bringing more of the same to the job. That perception will cause far too many of the activists to stay away. It is primarily for this reason that I support Chad Adams for NCGOP Chair.

Chad can do the job. He will work full time. He will be responsive to the grassroots (if he isn't he will fail). Chad will figure out how to raise the money needed. He will provide the type of leadership the activists have been longing for. He will be a different leader and that is desired by those people who the party needs to gain back its brand. The Democrats have stolen the NCGOP's brand and the party needs to claim it back in no uncertain terms. I believe Chad is the candidate who best recognizes that and he will kead to get it back.
Read more...

3/12/10, Perdue Takes The Helm »»

Yesterday's inauguration in Raleigh brought North Carolina's first female governor into power, but that is not the real story. Yea, yea yea history is made with he first female governor blah blah blah. The electorate in North Carolina has a short memory and does not demonstrate itself as being very bright. Of course their are a number of important factors to this election that need consideration.

First, lets go back a short time and think about the big story, or stories to be more correct, that covered the scene and the media leading up to the election. Corruption corruption corruption conviction conviction conviction jail time jail time jail time. Get the point? The big story was the culture of corruption in Raleigh that went from the General Assembly, DOT, Boards like the Transportation Board, Lottery Commission and even out of Raleigh to local elected officials. The press moaned about the shame and how we needed to change and bring integrity and honesty back to North Carolina long known for clean government. Please! So what is the point? The point is that the electorate once again sent the same old crowd with the same old people back to Raleigh. Does anyone out there think anything will change? Is anyone out there paying attention? Does anyone out there care? That's all right when your taxes start going up and up remember why. Remember that you sent the same corrupt crowd that has been in the thick of the problem that has led us to where we are back to the helm to fix what they did, never to this day admitting that what they have done was wrong. Good Luck!

The second part to this story is who voted them in? I worked the polls on election as did many others I know. We were observers and promoters. I always love doing this because I would go outside and ask voters about the people they voted for. I worked a poll in Southeast Raleigh. I asked people one of three questions: 1. Did they vote for Beverly Perdue? 2. Who did they vote for for Congress? or 3. Do they think Kay Hagan will make a good Senator? All of the people I spoke with except one, voted a straight Democrat ticket and were proud to vote for Obama. None of them knew who Beverly Perdue was, none of them (except one who knew she voted for a woman for governor but did not know her name) knew who they voted for for governor and not one of them had any idea who Kay Hagan was. The liberal Democrat machine did its job. They elected a gang without the voters knowing who they were electing. It sure protects them from the corruption charges defeating them when they literally bus folks in who have no idea who they are voting for. North Carolina went from Red to Blue by the votes of many uneducated voters.

The third point is the disgraceful campaign run by the Republicans. With the exception of leaders like Skip Stam who worked hard to win in the State House, note here the Republicans held their own and did not lose ground in the General Assembly, the effort by Republicans was one of the worst in my memory. The McCain campaign was run by a bunch of bungling idiots who should all immediately retire from politics forever! The State GOP seemed to be more concerned with not offending anyone that with winning the election. The party apparatus seems to have forgotten that conservatism is what brought them to the table in a state run by Democrats for 200+ years. The GOP staff was better at making Republican activists angry than with getting them work harder to win. The NCGOP has a critical decision to make this June. They will elect new leadership and they had better get it right or they will not get enough seats in 2010 to sit at the redistricting table after the census. That, my friends, means another ten years of gerrymandered voting districts that will keep the Democrats in charge in spite of the fact they generally get fewer votes statewide for General Assembly races than the Republicans.

The final piece of the story may be the biggest. The mainstream media in this country has proven themselves to be the greatest threat to our freedom. In the 2008 election they finally abandoned any precepts of reporting the news and instead created an alternate reality in order to elect Barack Obama and a bigger majority in Congress for their liberal socialist agenda. The news was distorted and the media flat out lied to the public to achieve their goal of a socialist government. They will now push hard for, among other things, The Fairness Doctrine to shut up their opposition, Conservatives, to regain their monopoly on the "news". They will work very hard for the socialist elitist policies they have longed for since the sixties. They failed to get control in and after the sixties but they see their chance now. We has all better wake up. Look what has already happened: we have a political recession, nationalizing of financial institutions, nationalizing of the auto industry, a campaign to make all America believe that the only salvation is to rely on money sent to our mailboxes by our benevolent mother the Federal Government and a clear push to nationalizing our health care system. The conservative majority in this country and the entrepreneurs who have made this country the greatest one on earth better wake up and not allow the left to take away our freedom.
a
Read more...

9/21/09, ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090918 »»

9/21/09, ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20090917 »»

3/12/10, A Comment On The Limitations of Electoral Politics »»

3/12/10, A Fair Tax [Penalty] Indeed »»

3/12/10, Raleigh N&O As Biased As Ever »»

The McClatchy Company?s Raleigh News & Observer?s editorial page, once strongly pro-John Edwards, is now just as strongly pro- Barack Obama.

But John Drescher, the paper?s executive editor, assures readers the N&O goes to great lengths to make sure its editorial biases don't creep into its news columns.

With Drescher?s assurance in mind, let?s compare newsobserver.com?s coverage of yesterday?s pro-Obamacare rally in Raleigh with its coverage of the Apr. 15 Raleigh ?tea party? rally.

Today?s headline

Pro-health reform rally draws 350

The headlines for the Apr. 15 rally:

"Tea party" gets pretty hot
Thousands of conservatives rally in Raleigh against taxes

As you can see, today?s headline gives no hint of the political orientations of the Obamacare supporters; and neither does the story which follows.

All the rally individual participants quoted today and all the sponsoring organizations are described, not by political orientations, but simply as supporters of health care reform and health care for all.

On the other hand, the N&O?s ?tea party? headline makes the unqualified and unsubstantiated claim the rally participants are ?conservatives.?

In the "tea party" story itself, the N&O uses the ?conservative? label three more times.

Yet most Raleigh ?tea party? participants were quick to tell reporters they had no strong party affiliation and considered themselves "unaffiliated" or ?independents.?

But the N&O chose to spin what the participants said. Here?s an example:

At age 65, Jim Lewis had never been to a protest, but the nationwide wave of anti-tax "tea parties" -- and the dismay among conservatives with the Obama administration's spending plans and bailouts that sparked them -- finally gave him cause enough.

If Jim Lewis had said ?dismay among conservatives? had led him to the rally, you can be sure the N&O would've eagerly quoted him instead of spinning to make it seem such ?dismay? helped bring him to the rally.

Here?s another example of N&O political spin from the ?tea party? story:

The protests -- which coincided with the deadline for income tax filings and were named to evoke the Boston Tea Party -- resonated with conservatives, who turned out by the thousands to more than 30 of the events around the state.

As polls measuring shifts in public support for Obama?s policies were showing then and continue to show, for the most part liberals were and are supporting his policies while conservatives were and are opposing them.

Its among independents that Obama?s support has dropped significantly.

So it seems reasonable to conclude the ?tea parties? have resonated rather strongly among independents.

But the N&O can?t bring itself to tell readers that.

Instead it misleads them by misusing the ?conservative? label.

A couple of other items - - -

In the N&O?s "tea party" report we find this:

The protesters were almost entirely white, a fact that hecklers in passing cars pointed out more than once. "All you white rednecks!" yelled one woman as she drove past the courthouse.

Today the N&O says nothing about the racial make-up of the Obamacare supporters.

Why not?

If it was proper to report the racial make up of the "tea party" participants, why not that of the Obamacare participants?

Also, many participants in yesterday?s rally were bused in from as far away as Wilmington and carried identical, professionally-produced signs. You can read more about all of that and view photos here at Conservative Nation.

But you won't read about any of it in the N&O.

The N&O has reported Dems' charges made with little or no proof that "town hall" meetings at which citizens have expressed outrage at the Obama administration's plans to socialize medical care are really just protests ?organized? by GOPers.

But when there?s easily documented proof that an Obamacare rally, which took place just a few blocks from its office, was heavily organized by Democratic Party interest groups and the state's NAACP chapter, the N&O says nothing.

Editor John Drescher?s right when he says the N&O?s political biases don?t ?creep? into its news columns.

They gush in.

Hat tips: Instapundit

Locomotive Breath

Read more...

3/12/10, Why Are Obama's and Dems' Numbers Dropping »»

President Obama's MSM flacks include ABC's Charlie Gibson and NBC's Brian Williams who pump hard for him in what their producers call "our networks' news reports."

But Gibsons's and Williams' producers and Obama's other flacks such as Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman must be worried.

As hard as they pump, spin and outright distort for Obama and his Dem congressional allies, both the President's and his congressional Dem allies' approval numbers continue to drop.

Why?

At least part of the answer is that tens of millions of Americans no longer count on MSM to tell us "that's the way it is today."

Instead, more and more Americans are paying attention to citizen journalists like Mike Williams whose news letter report today, Sunday, Aug. 23, follows:

Obama continues to slip in the polls. Rasmussen reports that 27% of voters now strongly approve of his performance as president, while 41% strongly disapprove. This gives him an index rating of -14.

Obama?s ten-year budget deficit projection is staggering. On Friday he raised it by a mind-boggling two trillion dollars. Then he walked out the door for a summer vacation at Martha?s Vineyard.

Is it constitutional for Obama to require every American to have health insurance?

Is Sarah Palin right that Obamacare envisions ?death panels? for end-of-life medical treatment? Obama says he?s offended, but others think Palin has a point. For sure America?s vets do.

Does Obamacare include taxpayer-funded abortions?

Did the White House illegally use taxpayer dollars to push Obamacare? More here.

Didn?t Bush try to tell us that Social Security is in trouble, and didn?t the Dems blow him off? Guess what?

Watch a Marine take Rep. Brian ?Brown Shirts? Baird (D-WA) to the woodshed at a town hall.

Is Iraq in trouble? Maybe, maybe not.

Would you be surprised to learn that Greenpeace has been lying about global warming?

Did the UK release Lockerbie mass murder Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi as part of a commercial deal?

Is Obama trying to recreate America in his own image?

Is Obama in over his head?

Mike

3/12/10, Penn State's Whiteout »»

3/12/10, To Boldly Go Where No College Has Gone Before »»

3/12/10, Penn State's Whiteout »»

3/12/10, To Boldly Go Where No College Has Gone Before »»

3/12/10, Do Our Kids Need To See This Art ? »»

3/12/10, I need to get back to blogging »»

3/12/10, Annexation and Reform 2010 Conference »»

3/12/10, Compromising on Annexation Reform Legislation? »»

3/12/10, TaxProf Blog: Tax Foundation: 52 Million (36%) of Tax Returns Pay Zero Income Tax »»

3/12/10, The Health Care Number You Didn't Hear »»

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2010/02/26/the_health_care_number_you_didnt_hear_98362.html

American health care is an accidental system. Private coverage - the type most Americans have - has its origins in the wage controls of the Second World War as employers offered rich health-insurance benefits in pre-tax dollars. Public coverage like Medicaid and Medicare, on the other hand, takes its inspiration from the Beveridge report in Britain, drafted in the early 1940s; Lord William Beveridge believed in zero-dollar health care - that people ought to pay nothing at the point of use. Today's American health care fuses these two systems, but with a common economic flaw: people are overinsured, paying pennies directly on every dollar of health service they receive.
The end result: for every dollar spent on health care in the United States, just 12 cents comes out of the individuals' pockets. Imagine what food costs might be if your employer paid 88% of your grocery bill or what a trip to Saks might be like if your company covered the vast majority of the costs of the shopping spree.
Far from addressing the 12 cent problem, Obamacare would exacerbate it. With its rich subsidies, expansion of government programs, insistence that all insurance cover specific services (and some with no copayments at all), Obamacare would pour fuel on the fire of health inflation. It's one reason that even the chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services - a federal employee - predicts cost rises under the President's plan.
The White House has been sharp with its critics, demanding that they outline an alternative vision. Here's one: that Washington move decisions away from bureaucrats (be they corporate or government) and empower individuals and families. In other words, American health care should be more like the other five-sixths of the economy where consumers spend more of their own money - certainly much more than 12 cents on the dollar - and get more value for it.

Posted via email from The Blue Pelican

3/12/10, Democrats Warn Of Losses Over Health Care Arrogance »»

3/12/10, Campaign Update »»

3/12/10, Action Glenwood »»

3/12/10, Wray Fray Continues »»

3/12/10, Guilford County Chairman Skip Alston is the Greensboro News & Record's Whippin Boy »»

3/12/10, It Is Time For The Greensboro City Council To Take The TREBIC Blinders Off And Require Neighborhood Meetings »»

3/12/10, Jihad Watch director offers an update on Islamist terror »»

3/12/10, No First Amendment right in Smithfield? »»

From WTSB Radio's news page. Though I disagree with the proposed boycott, punishing business owners for the stupidity of a town, I do certainly agree that the right to peacefully assemble was abridged. Granted the right was squashed by a municipality, not Congress. The First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Police Shut Down Patriots Day 9-11 Rally On Courthouse Steps
Event Organizers Plan Boycott Of Smithfield Businesses

Organizers of a peaceful 9-11 ?Patriots Day Tea Party? were shut down by Smithfield Police Friday afternoon. About 45 minutes after the event began on the Johnston County Courthouse steps, two Smithfield Police Officers arrived and told spectators the event was being held without a town permit and could not continue.

Birma Stemler, who spearheaded the Smithfield Patriots Day gathering, said she had been planning the event for four months and had been told by Smithfield Planning Director Paul Embler she did not need a permit. Later, Stemler claims Embler changed his mind in late-August, and said she would need Smithfield Town Council approval because a public address (PA) system would be used, but would have to wait to appear before the board in October. Stemler said October was too late for a 9-11 rally. As a courtesy, Stemler said she told a police lieutenant weeks ago about the rally.

Stemler did appear before Johnston County Commissioners on August 3, and was given permission by County Commissioners to hold the 9-11 event. According to minutes of the meeting, County Manager Rick Hester told Stemler he had no issues with a PA system but he wanted to make sure it would not disturb the court system that may be in session. In response, Stemler moved the timing of the event until after 5pm.

About 140 adults in attendance were shocked when police told them the event was not authorized by the Town of Smithfield. To protest the forceful police action, the group said they would boycott Smithfield businesses in response to the town?s decision to prevent them from holding a peaceful assembly on public property. ?I was told I could do this and there would be no problems,? Stemler told WTSB News. ?The officer argued with me, but did say I would not be arrested.?

Officer D.A. Tyndall was asked by a WTSB reporter, who sent the officers to the 9-11 gathering. He replied, ?The police department.? When asked again, who specifically at the police department sent him he again replied, ?The police department.?

Town Councilman Andy Moore, who was not present at the event, said he did not want anyone boycotting Smithfield businesses based on the actions of police. ?I will be talking with the city manager to see what went on and to see if we can work something out,? Moore told WTSB. ?Obviously I would not want anybody boycotting Smithfield businesses, especially during the touch economic conditions that we have.?

Chris Johnson, Executive Director of the Downtown Smithfield Development Corporation, who has overseen the revitalization of the downtown business district, said the thoughts of a boycott makes him cringe, but said he hopes cooler heads will prevail. ?Hopefully an amicable solution will be reached.? Johnson said the 9-11 event the group was trying to rally around would not occur for another year, and said he hoped it was a big misunderstanding. ?We ask that any citizen, not just this group, that has any problem with an elected official or city government, they would not take it out on the small independent businesses that are struggling in this economy.? Reached Friday night, Stemler said plans for the boycott still stand. She hopes others will join in the efforts to let town officials know the groups rights to assemble peacefully - protected in the US Constitution - were denied. One citizen said a lawsuit might be considered. WTSB Photos

Read more...

3/12/10, Cruising the Web »»

3/12/10, Obama's lost focus »»

3/12/10, »»

3/12/10, Ok, now this is just getting ridiculous »»

3/12/10, So where the Aitch have I been? Well... »»

3/12/10, Can Obama Escape the Taint of Blagojevich? - TIME »»

3/12/10, How Much For Your Wings? »»

3/12/10, Tweet of the Week »»

3/12/10, Bill James Is At It Again »»

3/12/10, Statue of Responsibility? »»

3/12/10, Home Warranty: Yea or Nay? »»

1/15/10, Simply the Best Explanation of the Heath Care Crisis and Solutions »»

1/15/10, Hippy Heat »»

On more than one occasion I've been accused of being a granola crunching hippy. This is an observation that has always puzzled me. I don't have particularly long hair. I don't wear love beads and I don't smoke pot. I think people confuse me with a hippy because I am usually participating in activities that are a little offbeat to the mainstream suburbanites we associate with. For instance, we raise dairy goats, cattle and poultry. When I built our house I made it out of concrete (actually the term is ICF) and stained the concrete floors instead of carpeting them. We built beautiful porches all around our house, but we often use the back porch for agricultural activities like milking goats or storing bales of hay. In fact the banner on this blog is a picture of my son sitting on hay bales stacked on the back porch. But now I think I have finally found a new project that will definitely throw me over into the hippy category. We (used loosely) are going to build one of these to help heat our house.

I've been searching and researching for some time now for a good way to add an independent heating system to our home that would reduce our dependence on the utility company. Last year's ice storm convinced me that this was no longer something I could put off. As I searched high and low, I found the best way to provide clean and efficient heat is to store it in thermal mass. I already knew that because our house is thermal mass and once it heats up, it stays warm for a long time. In the summer the opposite is true too. So far this year we have yet to turn on out furnace, and the house has averaged about 67 degrees. My research took me first to masonry heaters a.k.a. Russian heaters. These heaters collect the heat that would normally go out through the chimney by running flue gases through a series of masonry baffles. I was sold on the concept and the beautiful heaters, and then I started pricing the materials. Just the firebrick needed for the firebox and core of the heater was more than I could afford, not to mention the brick or stone facade. In my research I happened across several mentions of rocket heaters, but the pictures were enough for me to say, "I don't think so." Most of them were minimal constructions with exposed 55 gallon steel drums, commonly used as a heat exchanger. Then I came across this one built by the administrator of a discussion group I joined called, Rocket Stoves.. Experimenters corner.. Answers questioned!

The internals of these heaters are built from materials that I have hidden away in my extensive collections and piles of materials that my wife calls "junk." The operating principle is the same as the Russian stoves with heat ducts routed through the thermal mass to cool the flue gases and heat the thermal mass which then radiates heat into the adjoining rooms slowly. The design of the rocket mass heaters usually includes routing the gases through a bench that you can sit or lay on and warm yourself directly. The thermal mass and the exterior of these heaters is built using cob. Cob is a mixture of clay, sand, water and straw that is mixed and kneaded into the consistency of cookie dough. It is then used to form beautiful pieces like this one. Cob dries very hard and is fireproof making it a perfect heat sink.

So, my first step in this process is to learn about cob and to see if I could come up with an inexpensive source of the right mixture of sand and clay to make it. The Cob Builders Handbook said to start looking on your own land. It describes a way to take a soil sample and mix it with water in a glass jar and then see the different layers that settle. Sand being heavier will settle to the bottom and clay and silt on top. The recipes for cob vary depending on the particular soil but as it turns out this formally coal mined land has about a 50/50 mix of clay and sand to make cob. I still have to sift the rocks out, but a little machine cloth should make that go quickly. Ideally, I understand that more sand is better.

Having determined that the soil needs a little more sand to make good cob, I set about mixing up several small test batches of cob with differing amounts of added sand to form test bricks. As you can see in the picture, the cob formed up nicely, and making these mud pies really brings back some childhood memories. The numbers on the bricks represent the mixture of soil to sand in the cob recipe.

As I go further along in the process, I will try to chronicle the project and post the progress right here. Our hope is to have everything ready to form up the cob when my two oldest girls, who are both very creative and artistic, come home in December for a visit. I hope they still like playing in mud.

3/12/10, A Mind is Terrible Thing to Waste »»

By: Theosebes

The little girl's shoulders shook as she tearfully hugged her big brother good bye. The mother stood by with her hand on her son's shoulder, painfully dealing with the transition from high school student to college freshman. The scene was touching and brought back personal memories of just a year ago as I too experienced this emotional release in 2008 when my daughter entered the university for the first time. Yet there was peace knowing that the college she was attending was built on this mission statement: "Biblically centered education, scholarship and service- equipping men and women in mind and character to impact the world for the Lord Jesus Christ."

The first institution in America was founded in 1636 by a Puritan named John Harvard. He left his library of 400 books to found a "seminary" with this understanding, "The maine end of [a student's] life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all found knowledge and learning." (Samuel, Eliot Morison, The Founding of Harvard College). Today the mission statement for Harvard is vastly different. "In brief: Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of their educational opportunities." Harvard no longer espouses that the study of God and Jesus Christ is the foundation of all found knowledge and learning, but rather there is a denial of God and the belief that humans can create knowledge. Education has devolved from its superior beginnings in America when the Progressive agenda took root, walking away from the classical preparation that made the true pursuit of knowledge and truth foundational and moving toward an education of experience, resulting in an incremental ?dumbing down? of Americans dating back to the early twentieth century.

Parents today may send their children off to prestigious learning institution, feeling secure in the campus security, the dorm life, and the extra-curricular activities these schools may offer, but because parent's have also been indoctrinated into a Progressive mentality, it doesn't occur to them to be wary of the propaganda taught at most universities. Glenn Beck points out in Common Sense that the educational system has "fallen prey to political patronage and the Progressive agenda." Beck also quoted Woodrow Wilson, once president of Princeton University, (another one of America's first colleges founded to meet the needs of training ministers) who said, "Our problem is not merely to help the students to adjust themselves to world life....[but]to make them as unlike their fathers as we can." Beck, Glenn Common Sense, Pg 91.

When did the fathers of our country become unworthy of study and emulation? Who should we fashioning our lives after, if it is not the great men and women in history, our American history? Who should children view as worthwhile role models if it is not their fathers? When did the colleges and universities become enemies of the parent instead of a support system to help the child to succeed in becoming an adult?

According to Gary Amos and Richard Gardiner, in their book Never Before in History, the standard for graduation in the 1700s from Harvard was as follows:

Every student who, on trial, shall be able to translate from the original Latin text, and logically to explain the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testament, and shall also be thoroughly acquainted with the principles of natural and moral philosophy, and shall be blameless in life and character, and approved at public examination by the President and the Fellows of the College, may receive the first degree.

The Masters Degree required the following:

Every scholar who has maintained a good standing, and exhibited a written synopsis of logic, natural and moral philosophy, arithmetic and astronomy, and shall be prepared to defend a proposition or thesis; shall also be versed in the original languages, as aforesaid; and who carries with him a reputation for upright character and diligence in study, and shall pass successfully a public examination, shall be admitted to the second, or Master?s degree.

Today according to the Harvard website, graduation requirements to earn the bachelor?s degree, a student must complete 128 credits and maintain good academic standing (2.0 GPA). At least 64 credits must be completed at Harvard University. A student must fulfill all of his or her requirements and be in good academic and financial standing with Harvard University, with no disciplinary or administrative procedures pending, to graduate and participate in May Commencement. Each school of study of course has differing requirements for its emphasis,

but it is interesting to note the very different tone that one finds today at one of America?s most renowned universities and the requirements of two hundred years ago.

Most interesting is the requirement that the student must be upright and blameless in life and character and having a thorough knowledge of the Bible in the 1700?s Laws and Statutes for Students of Harvard College. One would be hard pressed to find such a high standard for graduation from any school today, let alone America?s oldest institution of higher learning: Harvard University.

Academic standards are set without regard for the character of the individual and no where is the Bible seen as an indispensable factor for a well rounded scholar.

Our lower institutions of learning have an even tougher climb to reach the excellence of early American schools. The New England Primer was the text book that emphasized both Christian charact

er and literacy and classical education was a standard for many colonial Americans, along with apprenticeships to provide skilled training.

Today?s classrooms would not be allowed to have a New E

ngland Primer, as it would offend those who believe in the separation of church and state. The Primer utilized Bible stories to help teach the alphabet and the Westminster Catechism was also part of the text. Samuel Eliot Morison said, ?American revolutionary leaders, both North and South, Madison, Wythe, and Jefferson, the Rutledges and Pinckneys, as well as Hamilton, Jay, and the Adamses, and Trumbulls, could never have rendered their distinguished services to the young republic without that classical leaning which is denied to most Americans today. (Samuel Eliot Morison, Three Centuries of Harvard (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1936), 136.

How do we expect our children to excel in grade school, middle school and high school when the standards of education are at an all time low? When Progressivism has a choke hold on real education, when indoctrination is the ring of the school bell, and the diploma of good citizenship is given to a student who can spew out the correct responses on a test that measures the ability to think green, distrust the government and treat people equally. We are not raising an army of brilliant thinkers as the founding fathers were, but rather a generation whose work ethic, morality and character are easy to mold by those who believe they know what is best. Yet this ?knowing? leadership also attended the schools of Progressive instruction and they too are not in the same league as the excellent scholars, thinkers and statesmen that the Founders were.

How can we as parents pursue an education for our children, that reflects excellence and strives for a standard that few achieve, a standard that early Americans set and achieved? We as parents do know what is best for our children, even in regard to education, though the local school district and the Obama Administration would say the contrary. American schools are failing our children not because students are not learning to read, write and do basic math, but because the standard of excellence, the standard of ?blameless in life and character? is not the key element in a child?s life. When we take away the foundation of Biblical scholarship and morality and replace it with an ever changing ideology of humanism, then the goal becomes only to clone robots who espouse the philosophy of the powers that be. When high moral character and biblical ethics are separated from the education of a child, only the outer shell will appear polished. Test scores may reflect understanding and in academics that child may find success, but the inner person will struggle for meaning that was never addressed in this pursuit of knowledge.

A wholly educated person is educated in mind, body and spirit and is a danger to the Progressive agenda, because that person has the ability to reason, to consider ethical ramifications and to speak against the wrongs that the government is foisting on the ?tired and huddled masses?. This is why education is the most crucial weapon that we have as parents and that the Progressive desire to hold in complete control. There is recognition that if the masses can be educated just enough to know how to follow their ?teachers?, then an army of ?yes men? can be established. This is why parents must do their due diligence to be connected with their child through every part of schooling, even the choosing of the university. This too should becomes a family affair as the family releases the life, mind, and spirit of their child to an institution that will either reinforce the values of the family unit and build it into a stronger entity, or will do the work of a cancer and slowly destroy the value system of that individual, creating in that student an individual who questions the loving authority that nurtured it and instilling a group think mentality focused on experience and skills needed for a future society.

The future of America is in the children that we raise. Mediocre is not an option. Parents must become more deeply engaged in the philosophy of the educational process, as well as breaking the chains that have imprisoned our minds as well. We must re-educate ourselves, recognizing that we all have had a dose of Progressive indoctrination, and we must return to the educational pattern that helped establish this nation. Those who rule on high in Washington are products of this century old heist of the American mind. Like the old proverb, they too have been the frog, slowing dying in an ever warming pot of water. But the fire can be extinguished and the death of brilliant minds stopped. It is not too late to stop the march of this Statist ideology but it must become personal and we must return to the pursuit of truth that Harvard was built on at its inception: "The maine end of [a student's] life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ, which is eternal life, John 17:3, and therefore to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all found knowledge and learning.? Without this foundation, we may truly say, the mind is a terrible thing to waste.

3/12/10, California Appeals Court Stands for English Only »»

By Theosebes

In 1914, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, "We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

Last week, the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected arguments that English-only exams violate a federal requirement that limited-English-speaking students "shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner." Nearly 1.6 million students in California have limited command of the language, according to a OneNewsNow article. The court of appeals, in a three-to-zero ruling, upheld a San Francisco judge?s decision that ruled against the bilingual-education group in his 2007 decision.

The lawyer for the school district, Marc Coleman stated that they are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court. But Aloysius Hogan, a spokesman for English First, thinks that due to the solid three-to-zero ruling this would be a tough challenge.

Last week, I had the privilege of introducing a ten year old Ukrainian boy to a group of school children. This young man was adopted by a couple last December and knew absolutely no English when he arrived aside from ?hello, yes, no, and mommy and papa.? The day of the assembly, he spoke in very good English to a group of children his age and fielded the questions that these children had for him about the orphanage he had lived in and about Ukraine. His native tongue is Russian and he had been learning to read Russian. Here in his new home, he had to learn a new alphabet and is now reading very well for only being here for eight months.

Credit goes to his parents, I am sure, for their dedication in helping him learn the language so quickly. But this young man has had a much more difficult life than most children ever experience in the United States and is already putting the majority of bi-lingual children and adults to shame.

If an orphan child can come to a new land, learn a new alphabet, learn to read and speak in English, in eight months, then why can?t a high school or any elementary school child do the same? I would suggest that there is laziness and a lack of care. The examples these children have at home demonstrate arrogance for not adopting the language that defines America and its heritage. There is no reason other than laziness and pride that keeps individuals back from learning the language of the land. With effort, the lives of the adults and children who do not have a command of the language would improve by making it easier to live in a country with a single language, making it easier to be neighborly and do day to day tasks in the community.

I agree with the Court's decision and believe that pressure needs to be applied to the homes of non-English speakers, holding them responsible for getting their children ready for the world. It is not the government?s job, but rather the individual who chooses to live in the United States of America.

3/12/10, Grassroots for Google GSO »»

3/12/10, More Vornado »»

3/12/10, Huddleston to D'Annunzio: Time to bow out »»

3/12/10, Rivals blast McHenry in flap over census »»

3/12/10, Bill Friday, nearly 90, still teaching »»

3/12/10, New N.C. State chief jabs a few stakes in the ground »»

New N.C. State chief jabs a few stakes in the ground

Randy Woodson, incoming chancellor at N.C. State University, was in town this week to make the rounds, including spending the day with legislative leaders Tuesday, breakfasting with former Gov. Jim Hunt (and and N.C. State grad) and dropping by the News & Observer to chat with reporters and editors. Woodson showed right off the bat a willingness to talk candidly about academic matters at N.C. State, the largest public university in North Carolina. In his words, he stuck a few stakes in the ground to make points about the university. Among them:

-- He thinks N.C. State has become "a bit risk averse" in academic matters and that it should take more risks that make an impact upon the state and the nation -- for example, declaring a goal for the university's program to become the best anywhere in chemical engineering, say, or other disciplines. "Academic risk is where you ? put a stake in the ground" and say you're going to the next level. That includes budget choices, and some departments clearly need to grow to meet challenges. "It's time to decide where you're going to expand" -- and N.C. State needs a clearly articulated strategic plan that includes targets and measurements.

-- N.C. State's endowment, he says, is far too small and ought to be three times as large. N.C. State, he said, "has one of the smallest endowments of a research university? that I've ever seen." On paper, he noted, the endowment is $400 million, but $100 million of that is land. So the investment endowment that produces income is about $300 million. It ought to be, he said, $1 billion. He also sounds unconvinced that N.C. State's model of school-based foundations raising money is the best way to proceed. "It's very unusual," he said and added, "It doesn't appear to have been very effective."

-- And the university's faculty, he thinks, is too small. North Carolina's high schools are graduating more students, creating demand for space in higher education, and a larger endowment will help attract the best faculty and keep them to serve the students.

-- The N.C. State freshman class generally has about 9 or 10 percent out-of-state students, considerably less than the 18 percent allowed by state policy. He'd like to see N.C. State's freshman class proportion of out-of-state students rise because of the mix of intellect and experience a broader mix of students brings to the class and to the state.
Read more...

3/12/10, Colorado Senate tied »»

Our first look at the Colorado Senate race since last summer finds that Jane Norton's entry into the race has not helped Republican chances of defeating Michael Bennet- and may have even hurt their prospects. Bennet and Norton tie at 43% apiece. Bennet trailed Bob Beauprez 42-39 in August before Beauprez decided not to make the race.

Bennet continues to be pretty unpopular- but Norton is too. Bennet's approval rating is 32% with 46% of voters unhappy with his job performance. 25% of voters have a favorable opinion of Norton with 35% viewing her negatively.

In their head to head match Norton leads Bennet 44-35 with independents, but Bennet ties it overall because he has his party more unified around him (79% support) than Norton does hers (77% support.)

Andrew Romanoff actually leads Norton 44-39, reflecting other recent polling that has shown him doing better in general election matches than Bennet. I would be cautious about declaring Romanoff to be the more electable candidate based on these early numbers though. Bennet has had all the negatives of incumbency- being associated with an unpopular majority party during a recession- without the positives- defining himself positively to the voters on the airwaves in the context of a statewide campaign. If Romanoff is still doing better than Bennet four or five months from now once the voters have started really paying attention the electability argument might carry more heft.

Bennet and Romanoff both hold solid advantages over the lesser known Republican candidates. Bennet leads Ken Buck 46-40 and Romanoff leads him 44-36. Bennet has a 45-37 advantage over Tom Wiens and for Romanoff it's 45-34.

All three times we've looked at this race over the last year it's come out very close, and I think the Colorado Senate race will prove to be one of the most competitive in the country this year. Neither Bennet nor Norton has made the best first impression on voters in the state and it will be interesting to see if they can turn it around- or if a Romanoff or Buck could pull off an upset in the primary. We'll have numbers looking at that on Monday.

Full results here
Read more...

3/12/10, Gubernatorial Approval Ratings »»

For most of last year Bev Perdue was one of the most unpopular Governors in the country, but that's no longer the case. It's not that the voters have warmed up to her- her 30% approval rating is still very poor- but the rest of the Governors have caught up to her in unpopularity.

Our last North Carolina poll found 47% of voters in the state disapproving of Perdue. The average disapproval on 21 Governors we've polled over the last six months is 45%. So there's really not much difference between her unpopularity and that of the average Governor anymore.

There's no doubt it's a tough time to be a Governor. The average approval spread on the ones we've looked at lately is 37/45. Here are some notes on those numbers:

-It's better to be a small state Governor. The three we've found over 50 recently are Sean Parnell in Alaska, Mike Beebe in Arkansas, and Mike Rounds in South Dakota.

-It's really tough to be a big state Governor. Out of the 11 Governors we've looked at in states that have 10 or more electoral votes only Tim Kaine at 46% while he was still in office and Jay Nixon at 42% have positive approval ratings. 7 of the 11 have disapproval numbers over 50.

-The five least popular Governors we've tested are Bill Richardson, Deval Patrick, Jim Doyle, John Baldacci, and Jon Corzine while he was still in office. The only one of those folks running this year is Patrick and I have a really hard time seeing him getting reelected even with three serious candidates in the race.

Here's the full data by approval rating:

Governor	Approval Rating
Mike Beebe (D-Arkansas)	59/22
Sean Parnell (R-Alaska)	58/19
Mike Rounds (R-South Dakota)	55/32
Jodi Rell (R-Connecticut)	49/39
Tim Kaine (D-Virginia)	46/39
Jay Nixon (D-Missouri)	42/25
Jack Markell (D-Delaware)	40/31
Bill Ritter (D-Colorado)	38/50
Steve Beshear (D-Kentucky)	36/39
Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina)	36/51
Charlie Crist (R-Florida)	35/51
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)	34/57
Rick Perry (R-Texas)	33/50
Bev Perdue (D-North Carolina)	30/47
Sonny Perdue (R-Georgia)	29/52
Jim Doyle (D-Wisconsin)	29/57
Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico)	28/63
Jan Brewer (R-Arizona)	26/43
Pat Quinn (D-Illinois)	25/55
John Baldacci (D-Maine)	25/57
Deval Patrick (D-Massachusetts)	22/59

3/12/10, Hoyer: Abortion Buck Stops Here »»

3/12/10, Another Yes Vote Bites The Dust »»

3/12/10, The Return Of The Bush Flacks »»

For some of the Bush administration's most energetic spinners, it looks like it's finally safe to get back into the water.

OK, in truth, some of them never really got out. But we can't help noticing that in the last few weeks, several prominent spokespeople for the last administration have been back in the media spotlight, triggering memories of those halcyon early years of the century.

Call it the return of the Bush flacks. Let's run down the list:

? Ari Fleischer: Bush's first and most aggressive White House press secretary (Americans "need to watch what they say, watch what they do,") made headlines yesterday after reportedly huddling with Tiger Woods to help plot the golfer's return to the PGA Tour in the wake of his bed-hopping-induced absence. Fleischer, who runs a crisis response PR firm focusing on sports, has worked in the past with Mark McGwire and college football's BCS.

? Dan Senor: The former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq is said to be seriously mulling a run for the U.S. Senate from New York. The husband of CNN's Campbell Brown, who also did a brief stint as a deputy spokesman for the Bush White House, recently teamed up with Bill Kristol to found the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative advocacy group.

? Dan Bartlett: Bush's top communications aide now runs Public Strategies, a Texas PR firm which recently signed on with Goldman Sachs to try to buff the Wall Street behemoth's tarnished image. Bartlett was a key architect of the controversial strategy of embedding reporters with military units in Iraq.

? Dana Perino: Bush's last White House press secretary, a frequent Fox News pundit, is considering writing a book. She told a recent interviewer it will draw on her experience to help people "be gracious and dignified in sometimes undignified settings." And she added that she has some souvenirs to help recall the glory days. "[I]f I went to a state dinner and there was a menu, sometimes I wrote on the back, 'Great dinner, love the entertainment, the Jersey Boys sang.' I have things like that to spark my memory."

? Gretchen Hamel: She's not a household name, but the former top communications official for Bush's trade policy recently launched a new advocacy group designed raise the alarm about "over-spending" -- and slam the Obama administration. She declined to tell us who's funding the group.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with these former Bushies looking to continue their careers. But given the low esteem in which the administration they served is still held, it's notable how seamlessly many of them seem to be moving on their next act.

3/12/10, Pelosi: Earlier Massa Conversation Didn't 'Come Close To Any Kind Of An Allegation' (VIDEO) »»

3/12/10, Attention Detroit automakers: »»

3/12/10, two weeks later... »»

3/12/10, Blond-Blue-Eyed Killer »»

3/12/10, Paul Ryan For President? »»

3/12/10, The Facade of Airline Security: How Many Shots Are In Your Bottle of Rum? »»

Featured - RunSmart2Win

Let’s Revisit Those Ten Campaign Themes to Watch in 2010, Shall We?
The morning after the biggest political upset imaginable — in...
How the 2010 Election Will be Won by Blogs and Tweets
On Monday, Jessica posted her “Ten Twitter Tips for Campaigns...

Featured - Jane Q. Republican

Caption This Photo
Hat tip: TV’s Andy Levy Subscribe ...
NC Teacher Rex Roland: Biggest Loser
From WLOS - A mountain middle school teacher is in...

Featured - Carolina Politics Online

Activists Rally for Tougher Animal Cruelty Laws
Meet Susie — the poster dog for animal rights in...
Well, at least they can hold more Products, right???
New Hanover County’s four newest liquor stores are some of...

Featured - Guarino

Kay Hagan's Liberal Church
A couple of days ago, I posted regarding an article...
Paying the Landfill Price
One of the big questions in local politics this week...

Featured - BlogTalkRadio

US Grand Jury - Mar 11,2010
U.S. GRAND JURY BLOGTALK IS IN SESSION! This week's show will...
Do The Right Thing Ministry - Politics from a Christian Perspective - Mar 10,2010
Who says Politics and Christianity don't mix? We think it...
Interview with Steve Forbes - Mar 10,2010
Steve Forbes is President and CEO of Forbes and Editor-in-Chief...
Interview: Dr. Larry Schweikart - Mar 10,2010
PV Radio welcomes author and Professor of History Larry Schweikart!...

Featured - Meck Deck

In Search of Facts on MJ’s Bobcat Purchase
As I suspected would be the case, NBA commish David...
How Does 7 Million More Foreclosures Sound?
Wonderful news on the real estate front. Banks have something...

Featured - Katy's Conservative Corner

7 Dumbest Ways to Accessorize Your Car
A website entitled Guyism has a post entitled The 7...
Reader Mail: Oil/Gas Exploration Points by Kent Misegades
On Saturday, your blogger posted an update from NC Senate...

Featured - Red Clay Citizen

We're Moving! Update your bookmarks to Civitasreview.com
We are in the process of moving Red Clay Citizen...
Obama's War on Seniors
I blogged before about the Obama administration's blood lust for...