It’s been 30 years since gasoline took such a big bite out of the family budget.
When the gifts from Grandma are unloaded and holiday travel is over, the typical American household will have spent $4,155 filling up this year, a record. That is 8.4 percent of what the median family takes in, the highest share since 1981.
Gas averaged more than $3.50 a gallon this year, another unfortunate record. And next year isn’t likely to bring relief.
In the past, high gas prices in the United States have gone hand-in-hand with economic good times, making them less damaging to family finances. Now prices are high despite slow economic growth and weak demand.
That’s because demand for crude oil is rising globally, especially in the developing nations of Asia and Latin America. But it puts the squeeze on the U.S., where unemployment is high and many people who have jobs aren’t getting raises.
The trap has caught Michael Reed of Charlotte, N.C. He hasn’t been able to find work since he lost his computer-support job in 2009. Now high gas prices are claiming more of what he has left. He and his wife won’t exchange gifts this Christmas.
“I try to drive as little as possible so it doesn’t take such a chunk out of my wallet,” he says.
As homosexual Army soldier Bradley Manning’s treason trial continues at Fort Meade, Maryland, the support he has received from Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has been curiously ignored by the major media, now touting Paul as someone who could win the January 3 Iowa Republican Caucuses. Paul has called Manning, a crossdresser with acknowledged mental problems, a “hero” and “patriot” for stealing government secrets and providing them to WikiLeaks.
Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, is charged with one of the most spectacular and damaging leaks of classified information in this country’s history. The death penalty has been strangely ruled out in his case, but he could still face life in prison.
Admiral Mike Mullen, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the “irresponsible posting of stolen classified documents by WikiLeaks puts lives at risk and gives adversaries valuable information.”
The Ron Paul 2012 website shows a young Ron Paul in a military uniform and as someone who would pursue a “pro-America foreign policy.” It says, “As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.”
It says nothing about the Congressman’s support for accused Army traitor Bradley Manning.
However, speaking at a campaign rally, Paul said that while Manning may have “technically” broken the law against releasing classified information to WikiLeaks, he did so for the purpose of exposing the “horrible things” being carried out by the U.S. Government.
Referring to Manning’s detention before trial, Paul said, “Should he be locked up and imprisoned?” Manning should be seen as a “political hero” and “true patriot who reveals what’s going on,” Paul said.
The Bradley Manning Support Network published an article saying that Paul believes that Manning is a “whistleblower” and his actions “are essential to the country.”
CAIRO–Thousands of Egyptian women have taken to the streets of Cairo in a mass demonstration against the military’s brutality against women during a crackdown on protesters that shocked many in the largely conservative society.
Ringed by a protective chain of male protesters, women from different social classes and religious background gathered in Tahrir Square Tuesday and marched through the streets of Cairo. Many carried signs with images of soldiers dragging protesters by the hair and kicking and stomping on them on the ground. One image was particularly shocking, showing a veiled woman who had been partially stripped by soldiers who dragged and beat her on the ground.
“They say they are here to protect us, but they are stripping us naked,” the chants echoed through the streets of Cairo.
Social-media-savvy protesters have widely circulated some of the most brutal images of the crackdown.
Those images drew the ire of the United Nations rights chief and unusually harsh words from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. Addressing students at Georgetown University on Monday, Mrs. Clinton said the events in Egypt in recent days were shocking, and she accused the Egyptian security forces and extremists of specifically targeting women.
“And now, women are being attacked, stripped, and beaten in the streets,” she said. “This systematic degradation of Egyptian women dishonors the revolution, disgraces the state and its uniform, and is not worthy of a great people.”
Over the past few days, the military has dealt with the protesters much more roughly than at any other time since Mr. Mubarak stepped down. The crackdown may reflect the military’s fury over the activists’ distribution of videos showing soldiers bludgeoning women and other protesters. The weak showing of the pro-democracy movement in the parliamentary elections that began last month may have also emboldened the military.
The politics of personal distraction. This is mostly what the opponents of former House Speaker Newt Gingrich are using to try and trash him personally to the voters. The facts are that when he was in office he was able to carry out most of his promises and the Contract With America in spite of Democrat and media opposition. After he left office the GOP lost their way and became Democrats lite in too many policy areas.
If Newt Gingrich were being nominated for sainthood, many of us would vote very differently from the way we would vote if he were being nominated for a political office.
What the media call Gingrich’s “baggage” concerns largely his personal life and the fact that he made a lot of money running a consulting firm after he left Congress. This kind of stuff makes lots of talking points that we will no doubt hear, again and again, over the next weeks and months.
But how much weight should we give to this stuff when we are talking about the future of a nation?
This is not just another election and Barack Obama is not just another president whose policies we may not like. With all of President Obama’s broken promises, glib demagoguery and cynical political moves, one promise he has kept all too well. That was his boast on the eve of the 2008 election:
“We are going to change the United States of America.”
Many Americans are already saying that they can hardly recognize the country they grew up in. We have already started down the path that has led Western European nations to the brink of financial disaster.
Internationally, it is worse. A president who has pulled the rug out from under our allies, whether in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, tried to cozy up to our enemies, and has bowed low from the waist to foreign leaders certainly has not represented either the values or the interests of America. If he continues to do nothing that is likely to stop terrorist-sponsoring Iran from getting nuclear weapons, the consequences can be beyond our worst imagining.
Against this background, how much does Gingrich’s personal life matter, whether we accept his claim that he has now matured or his critics’ claim that he has not? Nor should we sell the public short by saying that they are going to vote on the basis of tabloid stuff or media talking points, when the fate of this nation hangs in the balance.
Even back in the 19th century, when the scandal came out that Grover Cleveland had fathered a child out of wedlock — and he publicly admitted it — the voters nevertheless sent him to the White House, where he became one of the better presidents.
Do we wish we had another Ronald Reagan? We could certainly use one. But we have to play the hand we were dealt. And the Reagan card is not in the deck.
Our Republican Leadership is making some progress at controlling spending, but much less than we had expected.
[Editor’s Note: Emily Miller is a very solid journalist who I trust. Griff Jenkins from Fox News introduced us at CPAC 2010 and I have been a student of her good work ever since.]
Congressional Republican leaders are crowing that they cut discretionary spending in the ginormous omnibus spending bill. In fact, spending will go up in 2012 because of smoke-and-mirrors budget games that have become commonplace on Capitol Hill. A 1,200-page piece of legislation filed late the night before the vote continues to be the unfortunate way politicians operate.
On Friday, the House passed the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill to fund government for the current fiscal year, averting a midnight shutdown. The last-minute conference report, which then passed the Senate on Saturday, prevents any more of the budget dramas for the remaining nine-and-a-half months of the fiscal year.
The bill took advantage of every red cent in discretionary spending allowed under the Budget Control Act (BCA), which was part of the August deal to increase the debt ceiling by $2.1 trillion. Final spending for 2012 came in exactly at the statutory limit of $7 billion less than fiscal year 2011, but that was quickly wiped out by gimmicks.
On December 3, 1863, Frederick Douglass delivered a speech to the Anti-Slavery Society in Philadelphia entitled “Our Work is Not Done.” Douglass talked about the purpose of the Civil War, his meeting with Abraham Lincoln, and the future black Americans.
During his speech Douglass said, “The Democrat Party is for war to keep slavery; it is for peace for slavery; it is FOR habeas corpus for slavery; it is AGAINST habeas corpus for slavery; it was for the Mexican War for slavery; it FOR jury trial for supporters of slavery; it is AGAINST jury trial for fugitive slaves. And it was for the Florida war for slavery.
The Democrat Party has but one principle and one master. And it is guided, governed and directed by it–slavery! “
I very much hope that there is a future for the people in the Middle-East, but as the man in the video says “they are backward”. That backwardness combined with nuclear weapons can lead to mass annihilation. I am certain that I am not alone in hoping that it does not come to that and the world can be brought into the 21st century.
President Obama’s United States Department of Agriculture has delayed shale gas drilling in Ohio for up to six months by cancelling a mineral lease auction for Wayne National Forest (WNF). The move was taken in deference to environmentalists, on the pretext of studying the effects of hydraulic fracturing.
“Conditions have changed since the 2006 Forest Plan was developed,” announced WNF Supervisor Anne Carey on Tuesday. “The technology used in the Utica & Marcellus Shale formations need to be studied to see if potential effects to the surface are significantly different than those identified in the Forest Plan.” The study will take up to six months to complete. The WNF study reportedly “will focus solely on how it could affect forest land,” despite the significance of hydraulic fracturing to united proponents of the delay, “and not how it could affect groundwater.”
Speaking of the WNF gas drilling, one environmentalist group spokesman suggested that moving forward with drilling “could turn the Ohio Valley into Ozone Alley,” even though Wayne National Forest already has nearly 1300 oil and gas wells in operation which this study does not affect.
The Ohio Oil and Gas Energy Education Program (OOGEEP) recently estimated that drilling in the Utica shale, which is affected by the suspension of the mineral lease auctions, would produce up 204,500 jobs by 2015. [Update: the USDA estimates that the creation of only a few dozen to 200 jobs will be delayed by this study.]
“The President’s plan is to simply say ‘no’ to new energy production,” House Natural Resources Committee chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash, said to Interior Secretary Ken Salazar during a hearing pertaining to hydraulic fracturing. “It’s a plan that is sending American jobs overseas, forfeiting new revenue, and denying access to American energy that would lessen our dependence on hostile Middle Eastern oil.”
A jealous husband is facing life in prison after chopping off his wife’s fingers because she began studying for a degree without his permission.
Rafiqul Islam, 30, blindfolded his wife Hawa Akhter, 21, and taped her mouth, telling her he was going to give her a surprise present.
Instead he made her hold out her hand and cut off all five fingers. One of his relatives then threw Ms Akhter’s fingers in the dustbin to ensure doctors could not reattach them.
Hawa Akhter courtesy The DailyMail
Mr Islam, who is a migrant worker in the United Arab Emirates, had warned his wife there would ‘severe consequences’ if she did not give up her studies.
‘After he came back to Bangladesh, he wanted to have a discussion with me,’ Ms Akhter told The Times.
‘Suddenly, he blindfolded me and tied my hand. He also taped my mouth saying that he would give me some surprise gifts. But, instead he cut off my fingers.’
More:
The attack is the latest in a series of acts targeting educated women in the Muslim-majority company.
In June, an unemployed man gouged out the eyes of his wife, an assistant professor at Dhaka University, apparently because he could not stand her pursuing higher studies at a Canadian University.
Liberty University enacted a policy allowing visitors, students and staff who have concealed weapons permits to carry guns on campus.
The policy, approved Friday by the Board of Trustees and announced to students Wednesday, replaces a complete ban of firearms on university grounds.
Visitors are now permitted to store their weapons in locked cars, while students can apply for permission from campus police to carry a gun on the outdoor grounds or in a locked car. Both groups must have concealed-weapons permits and are prohibited from bringing firearms into any campus building, including dormitories, stadiums and academic halls.
The policy also permits some faculty and staff to carry weapons inside buildings, with permission granted on a case-by-case basis by campus police.
This is without a doubt the very finest column of the year. Read every last word as it is packed with substance.
Andrew McCarthy dismantles the latest editorial form National Review which was the cheapest hit piece I have ever seen in the publication. I was shocked at how sophomoric it was and it clearly did not deserve to be published in WFB’s legacy. The piece linked below from Andrew McCarthy has rescued National Review’s credibility.
Be warned, this is politically incorrect and Neil is not very fair to this caller. I would not have been so short with this caller rather I would have let him speak to see if he said more things that the host could discuss. With that said Neil makes a series of good points that are difficult to contest, especially the point about “the liars”. Taqiyyah is the Islamic practice of deception, which according to the Hadith has been used to advance the goals of Islam and the Umma.
Not quite my style but a noted point in radio history nonetheless.
Judicial Watch has done it again. It has produced–following a Freedom of Information Act request filed with the United States Department of Justice (DOJ)–documents that suggest extensive coordination and communications between the DOJ Voting Section and former ACORN affiliate Project Vote.
Project Vote appears to be directing DOJ resources toward particular states; is having meetings with DOJ staff; and is even recommending lawyers to work in the Justice Department Voting Section that will oversee the 2012 presidential election.
Project Vote also appears to have played a role in the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s administration, which aims to force the state to increase voter registration in welfare agencies and drug treatment offices.
The documents also appear to show that Project Vote receives special access to, and meetings with, DOJ officials. So do other voter fraud-deniers, such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund; Tova Wang at Demos; and the Brennan Center for Justice. I write about numerous similar instances in my book,Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.
These activist groups have enjoyed access to the top political appointees at DOJ over voting–including Aaron McCree Lewis, in the Office of the Attorney General; Sam Hirsch, Deputy Associate Attorney General; and Deputy Assistant Attorney General in charge of voting issues, Matthew Colangelo.
Emails obtained by Judicial Watch also suggest that Project Vote was directing complaints to the persons at DOJ responsible for deploying election monitoring resources, urging them to devote resources to races around the country–particularly where Tea Party groups were active in efforts to combat voter fraud.
On February 23, 2010, Estelle Rogers, head of Project Vote and a former ACORN lawyer, also urged Voting Section Chief Chris Herren to hire two particular ACORN-approved attorneys to work in the Justice Department Voting Section. “Now that the application period has closed, I want to heartily recommend two candidates to you,” she wrote.
“Thanks very much Estelle,” Herren wrote back.
Eventually, the Voting Section in fact hired numerous lawyers from left-wing groups, such as those that were dedicated to aggressive enforcement of the welfare agency voter registration provisions of Motor Voter. The relevant emails obtained by Judicial Watch are redacted, so we don’t know if the individuals hired were the same ones suggested by Rogers. However, we do know that DOJ hired attorneys expert in Motor Voter–such as Bradley Heard and Elizabeth Westfall, who brought lawsuits while at the Advancement Project that stopped Colorado and Michigan from purging voter rolls of ineligible voters prior to the 2008 Presidential election.
But that isn’t the worst of it. Other documents suggest that a swarm of left-wing groups is meeting regularly with top DOJ election officials. The documents show these groups urging the DOJ to open investigations into particular people, states and events.
Campaigns often are behind these ads. Some of these are so edited that they are not fair, but some show that some of the criticisms of Gov. Romney have merit.
[Editor’s Note: I studied Constitutional Law from federal Judge Allen Sharp, I have also been instructed by Henry Abraham, the author of “Justices and Presidents”, which is the definitive text on the Justices of the Court. Newt is totally correct about this as Article III of the Constitution is clear on this issue. The UPDATE is below.]
Go to 4:50 in the video to see Newt’s position. An awesome speech by the way:
What you are about to read below a load of complete nonsense. What Newt is talking about is called Article III of the US Constitution. Congress has almost total power over the lower courts. Congress passes “Judicial Acts” for the purpose of regulating the lower courts and dealing with rogue circuits like the 9th. EVERY first year law student knows this. For a former Attorney General to talk like this is beyond astounding and is likely pure politics.
They go on as if the lower courts are all powerful and that the status-quo is fine. They were created by an Act of Congress so what? Congress cannot take another look at them? Judicial supremacy was opposed by the Founders.
EXCLUSIVE: Former Bush Attorneys General Call Gingrich Position on Courts ‘Dangerous’
Two former attorneys general under President George W. Bush have found a few things to like in Newt Gingrich’s position paper on reining in the authority of the federal courts, but other parts, they say, are downright disturbing.
Some of the ideas are “dangerous, ridiculous, totally irresponsible, outrageous, off-the-wall and would reduce the entire judicial system to a spectacle,” said former Attorney General Michael Mukasey.
In a 28-page position paper entitled, “Bringing the Courts Back Under the Constitution,” Gingrich argues that when the Supreme Court gets it wrong constitutionally, the president and Congress have the power to check the court, including, in some cases, the power to simply ignore a Supreme Court decision.
“Our Founding Fathers believed that the Supreme Court was the weakest branch and that the legislative and executive branches would have ample abilities to check a Supreme Court that exceeded its powers,” he argues.
Mukasey and Alberto Gonzales, in exclusive interviews with Fox News’ Megyn Kelly, said they are particularly alarmed by provisions such as allowing Congress to subpoena judges after controversial rulings to “explain their constitutional reasoning” to the politicians who passed the laws.
“The only basis by which Congress can subpoena people is to consider legislation. To subpoena judges to beat them up about their decisions has only — if they are going to say that has to do with legislation they might propose, that’s completely dishonest,” Mukasey said.
“I think we have a great government, a great country because it’s built upon the foundation of the rule of law. And one of the things that makes it great and the rule of law is protected by having a strong independent judiciary,” Gonzales said.
“And the notion of bringing judges before Congress like a schoolchild being brought before the principal to me is a little bit troubling. I believe that a strong and independent judiciary doesn’t mean that the judiciary is above scrutiny, that it is above criticism for the work that it does, but I cannot support and would not support efforts that would appear to be intimidation or retaliation against judges.”
Mukasey has counseled Mitt Romney, Gingrich’s chief rival for the Republican presidential nomination, but said only once, and he would do the same for any GOP candidate. He and Gonzales said they were also not happy with the Gingrich call for the power to impeach judges or abolish judgeships following any ruling considered particularly outrageous.
They were additionally very skeptical of Gingrich’s suggestion that we should just “do away with” the Ninth Circuit because of some of the left-leaning decisions from that group of jurists.
UPDATE – Some Romney supporters are trying to spin this story into something it isn’t with a series of misleading accusations and objections.
Bogus Objection #1: Newt wants to micromanage the Judiciary!
Who said anything about “Micromanaging the judiciary” – I will tell you who – NO ONE HAS.
The 9th Circuit has not been micromanaged, on the contrary these created, invented courts who are invented at the pleasure of Congress and the American people have been trying to micromanage our lives.
Judge Hamilton even tried to order the Speaker of the State House and President of the State Senate to ban Jesus from the prayer opening each session.
Newt is not saying that the judiciary should be micromanaged and he has never said anything even remotely close to that. His position paper and the video of his speech which I linked above, make it clear that the 9th and a few other judges have gotten so out of control and so radicalized that they are trying to micromanage our culture like a far left secularist oligarchy.
Creating a straw man is no way to win the point.
Bogus Objection #2: Newt wants exclusive executive control over the judiciary!
Newt is not talking about exclusive executive control. Presidents lobbied for and got those Judicial Acts passed by Congress; just like when people said “Reagan cut taxes”, it was Congress who passed that new tax legislation.
Bogus Objection #3: We should take a Burkean approach in saying are we really so hubristic as to dismantle that system and hope to create something better in its place?
This is elitist euphemistic sophistry for “we need to preserve the status-quo” and it is also pure nonsense. We dismantle some government systems and recreate them all the time, it is called Federalism and the 50 states do it on a regular basis with various legal and policy experiments.
Bogus Objection #4: Chief Justice Marshall established judicial supremacy over constitutional interpretation.
I know all about “The Great Chief Justice” John Marshall, however Marshall cannot remove Article III, nor did he intend to.
Marshall did not establish “judicial supremacy over constitutional interpretation”, he asserted that the Supreme Court had the power of “Judicial Review”; to declare certain acts of Congress and certain enforcement actions of the Executive under it’s jurisdiction to be unconstitutional. There is a significant difference between the two.
In no way was Marshall trying to assert Judicial supremacy and in no way was he trying to elevate the power of the lower courts that exist at the pleasure of Congress to a position over them in such a way to take separation of powers and toss it out the window.
Quite frankly, I am astonished at the near total lack of understanding many so called lawyers have about “Separation of Powers”. All it takes is one good read of the Federalist Papers. So either our law schools are dropping the ball or the self bias of lawyers and law professors has them believing in this supremacy nonsense.
The Judiciary was intended to be the weaker of the three branches of government. It is the duty of all branches, not the sole purview of the court, to uphold and defend the constitution, this is why the Constitution demands an oath of office to defend it for ALL of the three branches.
The way our government is supposed to work is that when one branch gets out of line, the two others can gang up on it and strip it of power when needed. This is basic 8th grade civics stuff and I am seeing political enthusiasts and pros along with some attorneys responding to this very notion as if we had told them that Martians had made a crop circle in their back yard.
Is this simply the rank intellectual dishonesty in the form of political maneuvering or has our education system failed to this degree?
[Editor’s Note – Tossing all modesty aside for just a moment. My Constitutional Law class was as intense as one would find in any law school.
Question #4 on my ConLaw final exam was:
The Great Chief Justice dies in 1801. Thomas Jefferson appoints the head of the Virginia Supreme Court to be the new Chief Justice of the United States. Explain how this likely changes every Supreme Court ruling from 1801 to 1821 (essay format start writing).
I got an A. This writer has found few attorney’s who can beat him in a game of ConLaw quiz bowl.]
[As I have said many times, deception is a sanctioned part of leftist dogma, with almost every major progressive thinker advocating it as a tool to advance the leviathan state. The issue with leftist activists inventing military service is commonplace since the Vietnam War. – Editor]
Christopher M. Simmance, a leader of Occupy Buffalo, told several media outlets that he served as many as three tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not only that, but he also claims to have been so severely injured by an RPG while in combat in Afghanistan, that he only has 10 years left to live. Army service records, however, show a very different story, reporting that Simmance was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington for three years and left active-duty in January 2001 — before the September 11 attacks.
But it gets worse.
Simmance claims he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2001 where he served in the “Valley of Elah.”
If that name sounds familiar, it is because “The Valley of Elah” refers to the site where the Biblical battle between David and Goliath took place — it is also the name of a 2007 movie starring Tommy Lee Jones.
There is no “Valley of Elah” in Afghanistan.
Army records reveal that Simmance left active-duty service with the rank of E4, or specialist, not staff sergeant, and was stationed at Fort Lewis for the duration of his active-duty service.
Italian Finance and Economics Grad Student Explains What Happened in Italy
1 – Higher taxes lead to more big government spending spending, not lower deficits. Politicians will spend until they run out of other peoples money. Some Euro states are now confiscating the retirement accounts of seniors to spend.
2 – Do not let politicians pass a VAT tax. It allows government to put on massive taxes that are disguised as inflation. Politicians will then say that corporations are gouging you, thus justifying more big government take overs.
3 – Big government not only slows economic growth and drives wealth and investment (jobs) away, but it cripples the human spirit.
4 – Nations reach a dangerous tipping point when a majority of people live off the government.
5 – Bailouts don’t work because politicians will continue to spend too much. Several Eurozone countries will never be able to pay back the loans.
More lies and more concentrated efforts by this administration to kill jobs and how many times has the administration used this tactic to try and silence contractors, insurance companies and corporations?
The Obama administration pressured analysts to change an environmental review to reflect fewer job losses from a proposed regulation, the contractors who worked on the review testified Friday.
The dispute revolves around proposed changes to a rule regulating coal mining near streams and other waterways. The experts contracted to analyze the impact of the rule initially found that it would cost 7,000 coal jobs.
But the contractors claim they were subsequently pressured to not only keep the findings under wraps but “revisit” the study in order to show less of an impact on jobs.
Steve Gardner, president of Kentucky consulting firm ECSI, claimed that after the project team refused to “soften” the numbers, the firms working on the study were told the contract would not be renewed. ECSI was a subcontractor on the project.
The government “‘suggested’ that the … members revisit the production impacts and associated job loss numbers, with different assumptions that obviously would then lead to a lesser impact,” Gardner testified before a House Natural Resources subcommittee. “The … team unanimously refused to use a ‘fabricated’ baseline scenario to soften the production loss numbers.”
“If you are not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” – Malcolm X
Political Arena 