I will take 10 illegal Mexican immigrants to one legal Muslim any day.
At least the illegal Mexican immigrant is not about overthrowing the laws and country he comes to. The Mexican wants to work and better his future. The Muslim has no use for local laws and customs. Mexicans are accustomed to western concepts of civility. Western concepts are not foreign to Mexicans, but normal civility is not a part of Islamic peoples.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Radical Islam Over Runs London Streets
Presidential Powers
I don't believe it is any secret that I am a great fan of the columnist George F. Will.
So once again, if nobody else seen it, is a great commentary on Presidential Powers.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, only one delegate (from ever-bellicose South Carolina, naturally) favored vesting presidents with an unfettered power to make war. Presidents, it was then thought, could respond on their own only to repel sudden attacks on the nation. "The Founders," says former representative David Skaggs, a Colorado Democrat, "counted on the competitive ambitions of the three branches to make checks and balances work." Instead, we have seen Congress's powers regarding war "migrate ignominiously to the executive."
And how far have we come?
A crucial event in the migration was Truman's decision to wage war in Korea, made without Congress and never formally ratified by Congress, other than post facto by enabling appropriations, which are not an adequate substitute for the collaborative decision the Constitution's Framers anticipated for war-making. Since Korea, America has engaged in four major wars (Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom) and many other exercises of military force, but Congress's constitutional powers relevant to war-making have atrophied from disuse.
This is a column worth reading,,
The Truman Transformation
Oh, and I can say, if ever in or near Independence, Missouri, do drop by the Truman Presidential Library.
It is worth the stop.
So once again, if nobody else seen it, is a great commentary on Presidential Powers.
At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, only one delegate (from ever-bellicose South Carolina, naturally) favored vesting presidents with an unfettered power to make war. Presidents, it was then thought, could respond on their own only to repel sudden attacks on the nation. "The Founders," says former representative David Skaggs, a Colorado Democrat, "counted on the competitive ambitions of the three branches to make checks and balances work." Instead, we have seen Congress's powers regarding war "migrate ignominiously to the executive."
And how far have we come?
A crucial event in the migration was Truman's decision to wage war in Korea, made without Congress and never formally ratified by Congress, other than post facto by enabling appropriations, which are not an adequate substitute for the collaborative decision the Constitution's Framers anticipated for war-making. Since Korea, America has engaged in four major wars (Vietnam, Operation Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom) and many other exercises of military force, but Congress's constitutional powers relevant to war-making have atrophied from disuse.
This is a column worth reading,,
The Truman Transformation
Oh, and I can say, if ever in or near Independence, Missouri, do drop by the Truman Presidential Library.
It is worth the stop.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Oil Silliness
This is beyond belief.
Today, two of the three presidential candidates — John McCain and Hillary Clinton — have proposed a “holiday” on gasoline taxes.
It sounds great, but it’s a terrible idea.
Eliminating the federal tax, about 18 cents a gallon, would encourage more driving, putting added pressure on supplies, and driving the underlying price of gasoline higher. Since gasoline taxes go to pay for rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges, this is probably not a good time to do away with them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24411755/
Has anyone picked up a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations lately.
Sorry, buy I am an unrepentent capitalist.
Now check this clown out.
Windfall Profits for Dummies
Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production.
Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.
This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply.
They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?
Today, two of the three presidential candidates — John McCain and Hillary Clinton — have proposed a “holiday” on gasoline taxes.
It sounds great, but it’s a terrible idea.
Eliminating the federal tax, about 18 cents a gallon, would encourage more driving, putting added pressure on supplies, and driving the underlying price of gasoline higher. Since gasoline taxes go to pay for rebuilding crumbling roads and bridges, this is probably not a good time to do away with them.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24411755/
Has anyone picked up a copy of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations lately.
Sorry, buy I am an unrepentent capitalist.
Now check this clown out.
Windfall Profits for Dummies
Mr. Obama is right to oppose the gas-tax gimmick, but his idea is even worse. Neither proposal addresses the problem of energy supply, especially the lack of domestic oil and gas thanks to decades of Congressional restrictions on U.S. production.
Mr. Obama supports most of those "no drilling" rules, but that hasn't stopped him from denouncing high gas prices on the campaign trail. He is running TV ads in North Carolina that show him walking through a gas station and declaring that he'll slap a tax on the $40 billion in "excess profits" of Exxon Mobil.
This tiff over gas and oil taxes only highlights the intellectual policy confusion – or perhaps we should say cynicism – of our politicians. They want lower prices but don't want more production to increase supply.
They want oil "independence" but they've declared off limits most of the big sources of domestic oil that could replace foreign imports. They want Americans to use less oil to reduce greenhouse gases but they protest higher oil prices that reduce demand. They want more oil company investment but they want to confiscate the profits from that investment. And these folks want to be President?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
