Do We Need A Warning About Warnings?

NBC News posted a story today which included the following:

Some residents along the East Coast received a false tsunami warning on Tuesday morning after a private company sent out an alert following a monthly test by the National Weather Service.

A tweet from the National Weather Service (NWS) in Charleston, South Carolina, said the alert was sent around 8:30 a.m. ET.

“We have been notified that some users received this test message as an actual Tsunami Warning,” the NWS tweeted, adding that a tsunami warning was “not in effect.”

…In a statement to NBC News, the NWS said that a routine test was sent out and that the agency is investigating why it was communicated as an actual tsunami.

“The test message was released by at least one private sector company as an official Tsunami Warning, resulting in widespread reports of tsunami warnings received via phones and other media across the East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. We’re currently looking into why the test message was communicated as an actual tsunami warning, and will provide more information as soon as we have it,” the NWS said.

The agency said their test message “was not disseminated to the public via any communications channels operated by the National Weather Service.”

The push notification sent to phones in South Carolina was reportedly sent by the AccuWeather app, according to The Post and Courier of Charleston.

AccuWeather also tweeted that the notification was a test, not an actual warning.

“The National Weather Service Tsunami Warning this morning was a TEST. No Tsunami warning is in effect for the East Coast of the U.S.,” the tweet said.

It was not immediately clear how many people received the warning.

Similar reports were also made in New York, Boston, Miami and Houston.

It seems as if some of our emergency notification systems need to be looked at and improved.


Attention North Carolina Voters

THIS IS AN UPDATE ON THE STORY BELOW–THE BILL WAS NOT INTRODUCED TODAY. However, we are not out of the woods yet. The bill can be introduced anytime in the near future. We just have to be informed voters and vote against the referendum if it shows up on the ballot in November! (Updated Wednesday, January 10, 2018)


Tomorrow in the North Carolina legislature a bill will be introduced to allow for the appointment of judges rather than letting the voters elect the judges. If the measure passes the legislature, it will appear on the ballot in November to be approved by the voters. This is a really bad idea.

These are the rules on who may serve as a judge in North Carolina:

Only persons authorized to practice law in North Carolina are eligible for election or appointment as a judge (district, superior or appellate). N.C. Const. Art. IV, Sec. 22. Because that wasn’t always the rule, there is an exception for persons elected to or serving in such capacities on or before January 1, 1981.

The result of this law is that it severely limits the number of people who may serve as judges. South Carolina, for instance, requires that judges have a college education, but there is not requirement that they have a law degree or are lawyers. So North Carolina has already limited the number of people who become judges. What will be the impact of having judges appointed instead of elected? First of all, if the judges are not accountable to the voters, who will they be accountable to?  Second of all, if a lawyer wants to become a judge, but isn’t part of the in crowd at the legislature, does he have a way of becoming a judge? If the legislature is appointing the judges, isn’t that one branch of government having authority over another supposedly equal branch? How much time do the legislators have to evaluate the judicial choices of their leadership? This suggested law seems to be the perfect way to put control of North Carolina’s judiciary into the hands of a very small group of people. That is a very bad idea.

Hopefully this bill will not get past the legislature, but if it does, beware of it in November.

There Might Be A Reason They Are Not Cooperating

On Wednesday, The Daily Signal posted an article with the headline, “States Spurning Election Commission Show Irregularities in Voter Registration.” Obviously, someone in those states who is in authority likes the way things are going and does not want the system in place to change. It seems that common sense tells us that where there are more registered voters than people eligible to vote there might be a problem. Unfortunately, that is true in many counties in America.

The article cites a few examples:

Kentucky, a decisively red state in previous elections, had the most counties where registered voters outnumber eligible voters. California, a strongly blue state, also had significant problems, according to findings from Judicial Watch and the Public Interest Legal Foundation, both conservative watchdog groups.

Other states that outright refuse to cooperate with the commission are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, and Wyoming.

The states of Arizona, Illinois, and Indiana are still undecided.

“Overall, in most of the states not providing information to the commission, there are a significant number of counties with problems,” Robert Popper, senior attorney for Judicial Watch and director of its Election Integrity Project, told The Daily Signal, adding:

Most voter registration lists are available for free or for a small fee. Commercial entities can obtain voter registration lists. The only entity that is having a hard time obtaining these lists is the president’s advisory commission, which is trying to investigate data everyone has access to.

This kind of opposition to cleaning up our election process really makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes. Every illegal vote cancels out the legitimate vote of an American citizen. It seems to me that we should all be concerned about voter integrity.

The article lists additional states with numbers that are a problem:

According to Judicial Watch’s findings, two of 15 counties in Arizona, which is undecided about cooperating, list more registered voters than eligible voters. Two of eight counties in Connecticut, which has refused to cooperate, are not in compliance with the “motor voter” law regarding maintaining voter lists.

In Delaware, which isn’t cooperating, one of the state’s three counties had more registered voters than eligible voters. Illinois, which is undecided, has 26 of 102 counties with more registered voters than eligible voters, according to Judicial Watch.

In Pence’s home state of Indiana, where the decision to cooperate with the White House commission is being held up by litigation, 34 of 92 counties have more registered than eligible voters.

In Maine, half of 16 counties have too many registered voters compared with those eligible, Popper said. In Maryland, it’s only two of 24 counties—Montgomery and Howard—but they are among the state’s largest.

Massachusetts has two of 14 counties that have too many registered voters, and in New Mexico it’s six of 33 counties.

Only two of Tennessee’s 95 counties have the issue, but Williamson County is one of the state’s largest, Popper noted. In Vermont, it’s four of 14 counties, and in Virginia, it’s 18 of 133 counties, Popper said.

As for other states that aren’t cooperating with the commission, South Carolina didn’t have any counties with the problem, Popper said, but election officials said the state won’t release data to anyone who isn’t a registered voter in the state.

The other states not complying with the commission—Minnesota, North Dakota, and Wyoming—are not subject to the “motor voter” law, Popper said. States that either had laws on the books in 1994 allowing same-day voter registration or didn’t require registration to vote were not subject to the law.

That’s why Judicial Watch didn’t track their status, Popper said. Other states with this exemption from the “motor voter” law are Idaho, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin.

Judicial Watch has done a lot of the preliminary work in the area of voter fraud. Now we need to let the election commission finish the job. We need to be able to depend on the integrity of American elections–they are one of the foundations of our republic.

How The Free Market Economy Works

Hot Air posted an article today about job losses at the Boeing Aircraft plant in Washington State. The company announced this week that 1,800 unionized employees at the Seattle facility will be losing their jobs.

The article further reports:

Nearly three-quarters of eligible production workers at Boeing’s South Carolina plant voted Wednesday not to join the International Association of Machinists in a major setback for organized labor.

The Post & Courier newspaper reported that 2,097 of 2,828 voting workers — 74.2 percent — cast ballots against unionization.

Under NLRB rules, workers must wait a year before another union vote. In a statement, Machinists organizer Mike Evans said the union was disappointed with the vote but vowed to stay in close touch with Boeing workers to figure out next steps.

The article concludes by explaining exactly what is happening:

So 1800 workers in Washington are finding themselves unemployed. At the same time, more than 3000 people in the Palmetto State have gone to work, begun training and started pumping new life into the economy. So why aren’t the two unions in Washington who are making this doleful announcement talking about that story? I’m just taking a shot in the dark here, but it might be because South Carolina is a right to work state and the union has already been roundly rejected by the workers there who want to see the business grow and not kill the new goose which is suddenly laying a considerable quantity of golden eggs.

Boeing is not crashing and burning, nor is the economy collapsing. What we’re seeing is a rebalancing of resources where employers are going to places where there is an available pool of skilled labor and they can simultaneously keep labor costs under control to remain competitive in a challenging global market. Much like everything else in our capitalist system, such transitions produce winners and losers. Unfortunately for the employees of Boeing, their unions have opened the door to the “loser” side of the equation hitting the folks in Washington state while the benefits accrue to the citizens of South Carolina.

And that, folks, is how the free market works. In the end, more people gained jobs than lost them, and Boeing will be more competitive in world markets. That is a win-win. Unions are a useful tool, but they need to remember that if their contracts produce an unworkable business model for the company they work for, everyone loses.

Why The Second Amendment Matters

WISTV  (Columbia, South Carolina) posted a story on Sunday about a shooting in a nightclub. Four people were wounded by the gunman, but there is more to the story.

The article reports:

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting  into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

“His rounds struck 3 victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg,” Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

Bobo said the man who shot Thompson has a valid concealed weapons permit, cooperated with investigators, and won’t be facing any charges. 

The man who shot Thompson was exercising his Second Amendment rights and probably save the lives of many people. When everyone is armed, crime (and carnage) goes down.


I Wonder If This Will Improve The Vetting Process

Yesterday reported that the South Carolina Senate had passed a bill that would make the sponsors of foreign refugees liable for damages caused by crimes or terrorism committed by these refugees.

The article reports:

South Carolina’s The State reported that state Sen. Kevin Bryan (R-Anderson) who co-sponsored the bill in South Carolina, said the legislation should slow or halt the resettlement of refugees. “With the danger today of a terrorist infiltrating the refugee program, we have no other option than to enroll this information,” Bryant told the newspaper. “We’ve got to choose our own citizens over those who are not citizens of our country.”

The publication reported that if passed, the legislation would require:

  • Sponsors to enroll refugees with the S.C. Department of Social Services within 30 days of their entering the state.
  • Social Services to forward refugee information to the State Law Enforcement Division.
  • State Law Enforcement Division and local law enforcement agencies to check whether refugees pose a safety risk.

“It’s the first time the Legislature in the state of South Carolina and the Legislature in the state of New York are on the same page,” Bryant said. “New York has seen attacks. They have experienced it first hand. Hopefully, this legislation will prevent an attack here in South Carolina.” The AP has reported that New York is the only other state considering a refugee registry.

..According to The State, the vote in the state senate was 39-6. If passed by the House and signed into law by Governor Nikki Haley, the bill would also provide for keeping a registry of refugees in the state.


Unfortunately, this approach is required because of the history of the refugees in Europe and the United Kingdom. The main responsibility of our government is to keep its citizens safe. I do not understand the reason that terrorism seems to be built into the Middle Eastern culture, but I would like some safeguards to prevent it from coming here. The first step might be making the sponsors of refugees liable for any negative behavior. That won’t solve the problem entirely, but it will make us more aware of who we bring in.


Yesterday In South Carolina

Yesterday Donald Trump won the primary election in South Carolina. These are the numbers (from

SouthCarolinaPrimaryElectionAfter the primary, Jeb Bush suspended his campaign, so there are essentially five candidates remaining–the top three are Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. So what can we conclude from this? The only Republican establishment candidate left is March Rubio. He is not the Republican establishment’s first choice, but he is the only remaining establishment candidate. The only true conservative in the race is Ted Cruz. We can expect to see more vicious attacks against him in the coming weeks both from the media and the Republican establishment.

This is the current delegate count in each party:

DelegateCountFebruary21*Party leaders who are free to support any candidate.

This is the beginning. If you truly want America to move in a positive direction in the future, I believe that Ted Cruz is your candidate. Be ready for the Democrats, the media, and the Republican establishment to go after Ted Cruz in a noticeable way. He is the candidate that is truly a threat to the status quo.

When Good People Have Guns

The Daily Caller reported yesterday that a customer with a legal concealed carry gun permit prevented an armed robber from robbing a Waffle House in North Charleston, South Carolina, preventing employees and customers from being injured.

The Post and Courier also reported the story, stating:

The Waffle House crew was busily going about its typical early-morning ritual — smothering and scrambling breakfast, clanking through the dirty dishes — when a robber jolted them out of their routine.

A customer decided he was having none of that and opened fire in the North Charleston eatery, thwarting the holdup Saturday by fatally shooting the suspect.

The young man who tried to rob the restaurant was rushed to Medical University Hospital, but he later died, police spokeswoman Angela Johnson said.

…A restaurant employee expressed gratitude for the customer’s action.

“He saved us, that’s what he did.”

We are all safer when good people have guns.

The Fight To Be Heard

One of the frustrating things about watching the political scene right now is the feeling that only rich people and lobbyists are being heard by our elected officials. I am willing to admit that I often have that feeling. However, sometimes the obstacles that keep average Americans from being properly represented come from the parties that claim to represent them.

I spent today in Raleigh, North Carolina, in the state legislative buildings. I was part of a group that spoke with a number of state representatives and senators. I also attended a committee hearing on education issues. So what did our group accomplish? First of all, I need to explain that we were a group of eleven Republicans from the 3rd Congressional District of North Carolina. We went to Raleigh to talk to our representatives about a number of issues.

The North Carolina legislature is structured in such a way that if a House of Representatives or Senate bill does not make it out of its committee by April 30th, the bill will not be heard in this year’s session. Because it is April 28th, the legislative building was a very busy place. There were an awful lot of lobbyists running around. We were a group of unpaid, ordinary citizens. However, we did speak to a number of legislators.
One of the issues our group was concerned about was the date of the Republican Presidential Primary Election in North Carolina. The primary was originally scheduled for one week after the South Carolina primary, which would have put it in February. The Republican National Committee told the State of North Carolina Republicans that if their primary was held before March 1st, they would have 12 delegates attending the Republican National Convention, rather than the 72 they were originally assigned. The State Republicans were told that if they held their primary before March 15th, the delegates would be distributed proportionally according to the results of the primary election. If the primary were held after March 15th, it would be a winner-take-all primary. Currently a bill has passed out of committee in the North Carolina House of Representatives to hold the Republican Primary on March 8. Many North Carolina Republicans are hoping the date on that bill will be changed to March 22–the first Tuesday after March 15th. So what is this all about? An article posted by National Review on September 3, 2014, explains exactly what is going on in its headline, “Proportional allocation of delegates in early-voting states will make it hard for non-establishment candidates to rack up leads.”

That is the game being played, and that is the reason that grass-roots candidates are having such a hard time in the Presidential primaries.

The article reports:

This is a potential death sentence for the conservative candidate. Most of the highly conservative southern states traditionally hold their primaries inside of the March 1–14 window. If that occurs again in 2016, a conservative candidate will probably not gain many delegates over the establishment choice by winning the states in his base. Even if a southern state in the window allocates, as many non-southern states do, three delegates to each congressional district on a winner-take-all basis, the proportional allocation of the statewide delegates will place a conservative statewide winner at a severe disadvantage. He or she will then have to compete in less hospitable states that have the freedom to select all of their delegates by winner-take-all methods.

The article shows how the new rules could prevent a conservative from winning the nomination:

The 2016 preliminary lineup already foreshadows this danger. According to the website, ten of the 15 southern or border states (including Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina) are currently scheduled to hold their contests before March 14. Three other caucus states where conservatives traditionally do well (Iowa, Minnesota, and Colorado) are also scheduled to hold their contests before the window closes. Conservative Utah is also in this group, as are the two midwestern states where Rick Santorum did best in 2012, Michigan and Ohio.
Under the RNC’s new rules, a conservative could run the table in these events and yet barely open up a delegate lead. The establishment choice could easily make up ground and then some in less conservative states such as Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York.

The Republican Party is signing its death warrant if it continues to attempt to shut out conservative voters and conservative candidates. The energy in the party has come from the conservative movement, and the boots on the ground have generally been conservative. The establishment wants to hold the power, but they are not generally the ones doing the groundwork.

I am hoping the North Carolina legislature will move the Republican primary to March 22, but I am not optimistic.

I Think We Have Run Out Of Pinocchios

John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line today detailing some of the recent lies told by President Obama. Because the press so rarely points out these lies, Mr. Hinderaker listed a few.

President Obama claims that it is undeniable that the planet is getting warmer (tell that to the people in Massachusetts).

Power Line notes:

Far from being undeniable, the claim that “the climate is getting warmer” is false. Satellite measurements show that there has been no warming for around 18 years, a fact that has caused great consternation among climate alarmists:

In 2009, Kevin Trenberth, one of the leading alarmist scientists, wrote in an email: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

Global warming has been used as an excuse for various things–including the veto of the Keystone Pipeline. The fact that it is currently  non-existent does not seem to bother the President or the press.

Another lie has to do with justification for gun control.

The article reports:

During the same town hall, Obama lamented his inability to get gun control legislation through Congress:

Increased gun control measures would go a long way toward cutting down on America’s homicide rate, President Obama said during a town-hall event on Friday.

“Our homicide rates are so much larger than other industrialized countries, by like a mile,” he said during a speech at Benedict College in South Carolina.

“Most of that is attributable to the easy, ready availability of firearms, particularly handguns.”

There are two things wrong with Obama’s claims. First, the homicide rate in the United States is relatively low, and falling. The World Bank has compiled homicide rates by country; most are higher than ours, some many times higher. To be sure, some “industrialized” countries have lower rates than we do. Norway, for example, has a murder rate that is only a fraction of ours. But the reasons are entirely demographic: I would wager that the homicide rate among Norwegian-Americans is even lower than Norway’s.

The article at Power Line notes that the homicide rate in America is now half of what it was during the Clinton Administration–despite the fact that many more people own guns now than did then.

The article concludes:

Barack Obama is not the only Pinocchio in political life, but more than any other public figure I can think of, he seems to think he is entitled to make up his own facts. That sense of entitlement probably results from the press’s unwillingness to point out his many errors.

I would love to have a President who did not lie, but if that is not possible, I would at least like to have a press that points out what the truth is.


A Chilling Thought

On Friday, John Fund posted a very interesting article at the National Review Online. The article deals with the behavior of the National Park Rangers during the shutdown. On Wednesday the House Oversight Committee began an investigation into that behavior.

The article reports a very obvious question asked by Representative Trey Gowdy of South Carolina:

Gowdy wanted to know why Jarvis had allowed “pot-smoking” Occupy Wall Street protesters to camp overnight illegally in Washington’s McPherson Square park for 100 days, yet put up barricades to keep veterans out of war memorials on the first day of the shutdown. By not issuing a single citation to the Occupy campers, Gowdy argued, the Park Service was treating them better than the nation’s military veterans. “Can you cite me the regulation that required you to erect barricades from accessing a monument that they built?” he demanded.

…Representative Darrell Issa was equally stern with Jarvis, noting that, since the Park Police weren’t furloughed during the shutdown, “an open-air monument was guarded by the same number of people to prevent Americans from getting in as would allow them to safely go in and out.”

The article goes on to list some of the more bizarre closings during the government shutdown. Please follow the link above to read the list.

The article concludes:

But now that the shutdown is over, it’s important for Chairman Issa and others to figure out how it was manipulated politically. Because if the Park Service can become a pawn in the Obama administration’s political wars, does anyone doubt that the integrity of other even more vital agencies wouldn’t be at risk in any future budget showdown?

The fact that the signs closing the parks appeared so rapidly (have you ever tried to get the government to do anything quickly?) and the way the Park Rangers behaved convinces me that this was a planned event by the Obama Administration. Frankly I think the shutdown was used to manipulate the American people, and we fell for it. Hopefully many of us will begin to ask why the Park Rangers followed the orders to make the shutdown uncomfortable for average Americans and how the signs appeared so quickly. I think we were played as fools.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Mark Sanford Has Won The South Carolina Special Election

Tonight the Washington Post is reporting that former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has been elected to the House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Mitt Romney won this district by 18 points last fall, but Sanford’s personal history made the seat competitive. Democrats poured money into the race while national Republicans abandoned their candidate, giving Colbert Busch a 5-to-1 advantage in outside spending.

If the American people can forgive Bill Clinton for his indiscretions, I guess they can forgive Mark Sanford for his. There are two things in this election that bode well for the Republicans in 2014–the amount of money poured into the coffers of Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch did not make a difference, and a seriously flawed candidate whose positions on issues are in line with the voters can win an election despite his flaws.

As the House of Representatives considers the immigration bill that the Senate will hand them in the near future, they would do well to keep this election in mind–issues won–money did not.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Taking Action On ObamaCare

On Thursday the Washington Times posted an article about a law making its way through the South Carolina legislature. The South Carolina House of Representatives passed a law to make President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) “null and void,” and criminalize its implementation.

The article reports:

The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

Governor Nikki Haley stated:

“To that end, we will not pursue the type of government-run health exchanges being forced on us by Washington. Despite the rose-colored rhetoric coming out of D.C., these exchanges are nothing more than a way to make the state do the federal government’s bidding in spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars on insurance subsidies that we can’t afford.”

The bill went to the South Carolina Senate on Thursday and has been moved to the Committee on Finance. This could be the making of a states’ rights Supreme Court case or simply a major Constitutional crisis. Any legal challenges to this law would be related to the Tenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

The Tenth Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Stay tuned, this could get very interesting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Showmanship Over Substance

The Daily Caller reported today that at least five Democrat Senators are bringing illegal aliens to President Obama’s State of the Union speech.

The article reports:

The DC reported Tuesday that five Democrats — First Lady Michelle Obama, Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Rep. Marc Veasey and Rep. Kathy Castor — have announced that they are bringing illegal immigrants to the speech as their guests.

Most of those guests are young. Alan Aleman, the 20-year-old guest of Michelle Obama, is a benefit of President Obama’s deferred deportation program for illegal immigrants who were brought into the country when they were under 16 years old. He has since been given a Social Security number.

But Gutierrez is bringing 27-year-old Gabino Sanchez, an illegal immigrant who lives in South Carolina and is fighting deportation, as his guest.

The article points out that all attendees of the speech undergo a government background check which includes providing a Social Security Number, which theoretically an illegal alien would not have. An American citizen would have to provide that information.

It would be interesting to know what inspired these government officials to bring people who were in the country illegally to a major Presidential speech.

Our government seems to have forgotten that protecting our borders is supposed to be one of its highest priorities. The government also seems to have a problem understanding the meaning of the word illegal.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Jim DeMint Will Resign From The Senate In January

The following is a press release from the Office of Senator Jim DeMint. It was released today:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) announced that he will leave the Senate at the beginning of January to become the next president of The Heritage Foundation, the largest and most respected conservative think tank in America.

“It’s been an honor to serve the people of South Carolina in United States Senate for the past eight years, but now it’s time for me to pass the torch to someone else and take on a new role in the fight for America’s future.

“I’m leaving the Senate now, but I’m not leaving the fight. I’ve decided to join The Heritage Foundation at a time when the conservative movement needs strong leadership in the battle of ideas. No organization is better equipped to lead this fight and I believe my experience in public office as well as in the private sector as a business owner will help Heritage become even more effective in the years to come.

“I’m humbled to follow in the footsteps of Ed Feulner, who built the most important conservative institution in the nation. He has been a friend and mentor for years and I am honored to carry on his legacy of fighting for freedom.

“My constituents know that being a Senator was never going to be my career. I came to Congress as a citizen legislator and I’ve always been determined to leave it as citizen legislator. South Carolina has a deep bench of conservative leaders and I know Governor Haley will select a great replacement.

“One of the most rewarding things I’ve done in the Senate is work with the grassroots to help elect a new generation of leaders who have the courage to fight for the principles of freedom that make this country so great. I’m confident these senators will continue the legacy of conservative leaders before them.”

Jim DeMint was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998 after owning a successful advertising and market research company for twenty years. DeMint left the House after limiting himself to three terms and then was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004 and re-elected in 2010.

During his time in office, DeMint has been tireless advocate for Americans taxpayers. His goal has been to support and defend the Constitution, which was written to preserve liberty by restraining the federal government. Toward that end, he authored legislation to balance the budget, ban earmarks, replace the tax code, and reform our entitlement programs. He also led the fight against unconstitutional power grabs like the Wall Street bailout and Obamacare.

This is wonderful news for the Heritage Foundation and sad news for the Senate. Jim DeMint has been an honest representative of conservative values during the time he has served in Congress. Jim DeMint was first elected to the the House of Representatives in 1998 and was elected to the Senate in 2004.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Had To Go To Pravda To Get This Story

I am not kidding. I found the link to this information at Pravda (Russian for ‘truth”). I wonder why they are posting the story, considering that President Obama is their friend, but on the other hand, the current Russian government is not known for its pro-American feelings. How would the Russians feel about President Joe Biden? That is just a scary thought.

Anyway, the Tea Party Tribune (who knew they had a publication?) posted a memo by nine state Attorneys General listing the ways the Obama Administration has aggressively used administrative agencies to implement policy objectives that cannot gain congressional approval and are outside of the law.

This is the list of violations:

  • FCC: Regulation of the Internet in the face of a court order from Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. stating that the FCC does not have the power to regulate the Internet
  • PPACA: Individual Mandate; To be heard by Supreme Court of the United States in March
  • EPA 1: GHG lawsuit; EPA’s own Inspector General reported last September that EPA failed to comply with its own data standards; Heard in Circuit Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. in February
  • OSM: Attempting to impose regulatory requirements on the 19 states with authority for exclusive regulation of their coalmines for the first time in more than 30 years
  • NLRB: Boeing; Engaged in unprecedented behavior as described by former Chairmen under both Presidents Bush (43) and Clinton; behavior is best exemplified in South Carolina where the Board tried to muzzle over 80 percent of state voters who supported a secret ballot amendment to the South Carolina Constitution and attempted unsuccessfully to tell an employer in the state where they can and cannot base manufacturing facilities
  • EPA: Florida Water; EPA’s numeric nutrient criteria pre-empted Florida standards; U.S. District Judge upheld the state’s site-specific alternative criteria for streams and rivers
  • EPA: Texas Air; TX filed lawsuit challenging Cross-State Air Pollution Rules; application rule to TX was particularly dubious because state was included in the regulation at the last minute and without an opportunity to respond to the proposed regulation; regulation was based on a dubious claim that air pollution from TX affected a single air-quality monitor in Granite City, Illinois more than 500 miles and three states away from Texas
  • EPA: Oklahoma Air; EPA illegally usurped Oklahoma’s authority in the Clean Air Act to determine the state’s own plan for addressing sources of emissions that affect visibility, by imposing a federal implementation plan; Federal plan goes beyond the authority granted to the EPA in the Clean Air Act and will result in $2 billion in cost to install technology needed to complete the EPA plan, and a permanent increase of 15-20 percent in the cost of electricity; Obama Administration is fighting Oklahoma’s appeal, which was filed in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals
  • HHS: Religious Liberty; HHS mandated religious entities such as Catholic, Baptist and Jewish schools and churches be required to provided medical services they find unconscionable to their employees; President attempted to compromise with an “accommodation” in name only that required insurance companies to provide the services for free to the religious organization employees; Accommodation made matters worse as many religious-base hospitals and schools are self-insurers; Seven Attorneys General filed suit to protect religious liberty and oppose the HHS mandate
  • DOJ: South Carolina & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States; DOJ ignored section 8 of the Voting Rights Act which calls for protections against voter fraud, and used section 5 to administratively block measures to protect the integrity of elections passed by state legislatures in preclearance states including South Carolina; South Carolina voter ID law merely requires a voter to show photo identification in order to vote or to complete an affidavit at the pain of perjury if the voter does not have a photo ID
  • DOJ: Arizona & Voting Rights Act: Rejecting voter ID statutes that are similar to those already approved by the Supreme Court of the United States
  • DOJ: Arizona Immigration; In violation of 10th Amendment, federal government to sue to prevent AZ from using reasonable measures to discourage illegal immigration within Arizona’s borders; Affects Arizona because state has a large percentage, compared to other states, of illegal immigrants and need to be able to act to reduce the number
  • DOJ: Alabama Immigration; The DOJ challenged Alabama’s immigration reform laws after parts were “green lighted” by a federal judge; DOJ appealed the ruling; parts of the AL case have been struck down in various federal courts; specific provisions of the law include collection of the immigration status of public school students, businesses must use E-Verify, prohibition of illegal immigrants receiving public benefits; the provision requiring immigrants to always carry alien registration cards; allowance of lawsuits by state citizens who do not believe public officials are enforcing the law
  • DOJ: South Carolina Immigration; DOJ challenged South Carolina’s immigration reform laws that are very similar to the AZ which is scheduled to appear before the United States Supreme Court; SC case will be heard by the 4th Circuit soon there after as the 4th Circuit granted SC motion to extend the filing time until after the US Supreme Court issues an Opinion in AZ
  • Congressional: “Recess” appointments to NLRB (three) and CFPB (one)
  • EEOC: Hosanna Tabor (MI); Sought to reinstate a minister who was discharged for her disagreement with the religious doctrine of the church
  • DOE: Yucca Mountain; In 2009, Administration arbitrarily broke federal law and derailed the most studied energy project in American history when DOE announced intent to withdraw 8,000 page Yucca Mountain licensing application with prejudice; SC and Washington State filed suit, as a result, contesting the unconstitutional action; American people have paid more than $31 billion (including interest) through percentages of electric rate fees towards the project and taxpayers have footed an addition $200 million in legal feeds and over $2 billion in judgments against the DOE for breaking contracts associated with Yucca Mountain
    1. DOI: Glendale Casino (AZ); Glendale is a violation because the Federal Government is forcing a family-oriented town, Glendale, to become another Las Vegas against its will.  Essentially, the Federal Government has granted ‘reservation status’ to a 54-acre plot in the same town, where the Tohono O’odham Nation plans to build a resort and casino.

My question is simple, “Where is the media on this?” Why did I have to go to Pravda to find the link? The current administration needs to be reminded legally in a big way what the U.S. Constitution says about the government’s power in America. If the media won’t do that, the people need to do it in November.

Enhanced by Zemanta

No Good Deed Goes Unpunished

The five people who actually still watch MSNBC saw something last week that was totally obscene. On Monday the Washington Examiner reported on an MSNBC commentary on the fact that Mitt Romney gave an unemployed black woman $50. The woman approached the candidate and told him that she was unemployed and not able to pay her bills. He then reached into his wallet and gave her $50 (I have heard that he only had $50 in cash in his wallet, but I can’t confirm that).

The article at the Washington Examiner quotes the outrage at MSNBC:

“As an African American woman it galls me. I don’t even like to watch it. I felt like it plays into every sort of patronizing stereotype of black people,” MSNBC contributor Joy-Ann Reid said. “‘Oh, here is this little lady let me give her 50 bucks’. . . I think it plays into that conservative meme, that you don’t need actual programs that the government puts in place to help people in need, we’ll just give them charity, I’ll just give him 50 bucks.”

“There are alot of very convenient elements to this story, as you said Joy, it really makes me cringe. We have this black woman who suddenly almost becomes this mascot for the campaign,” said MSNBC contributor Janell Ross. “She is sort of affirming all sorts of Conservative ideas about who is poor and how certain people deal with their poverty and seek out the assistance of a wealthy white man to hand you some form of aid.”

Good grief. I am sure that anyone of us, if we actually had $50 to spare, would have done the same thing. I have a footnote to add to the story, A friend of mine has a family member who worked on one of Mitt Romney’s campaigns in Massachusetts. The family member was a very young man (first year in college maybe), and it was one of Romney’s early campaigns (possibly for Governor). The young man dressed like a college student–jeans, t-shirts, etc. There was a public event coming up in a rather formal location, and Mitt Romney noticed how the young man was dressed. Without a second thought, he handed the young man his sports coat so that he would be dressed appropriately.

Giving a person in need $50 is in character for Mitt Romney. To try to make that act of generosity a racial issue is just wrong. I know that MSNBC will not apologize for their knee-jerk conclusion that this was racist, but anyone who watches MSNBC should make a mental note that their coverage is not always fair.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Something To Watch For As We Approach 2012

John Hinderaker at Power LIne posted a story today about recent activities by the Obama Justice Department that will make voter fraud more difficult to prevent. The Department of Justice has announced that it has rejected South Carolina’s voter identification law.

The article reports:

Department of Motor Vehicles executive director Kevin Shwedo said the state Election Commission knew it was using inaccurate data when it released reports showing nearly 240,000 active and inactive voters lacked driver’s licenses or ID cards.

Shwedo sent the state’s attorney general an analysis showing that 207,000 of those voters live in other states, allowed their ID cards to expire, probably have licenses with names that didn’t match voter records or were dead. He said the commission created “artificially high numbers to excite the masses.”

When the motor-voter law was passed, it required states to periodically examine their voting lists to eliminate people who had died or moved from the state. Unfortunately, in many states, that portion of the law has not been enforced. That is one of many reasons why voter identification is needed in all elections.

Voter identification requirements are not about denying people the right to vote–the are about ensuring that every man’s vote counts equally. When voter fraud is allowed to flourish, all Americans should be concerned.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Possible Good News For Boeing

Fox News reported yesterday that Boeing’s machinist union will vote today on a four-year contract extension. Workers are expected to ratify the contract, which includes dropping the complaint to the National Labor Relations Board against Boeing for opening a non-union plant in South Carolina.

The article reports:

Crucially for the union, it would ensure that jobs for Boeing’s updated 737 line — the 737 Max — stay in the Puget Sound region. Boeing said in July it was studying other locations for the new 737.

Industry analyst Wayne Plucker, of the San Antonio, Texas, research firm Frost and Sullivan, said the agreement is good for both sides. Considering the looming Defense Department budget cuts that threaten defense contracts across the industry, Boeing is going to need solid performance from its commercial airplanes division, Plucker said.

It sounds as if both sides got some good things in the agreement. It is just unfortunate that the union used a government agency to bully the company. Government interference in a company’s decision as to where to locate their facilities is one of the things that inhibits economic growth. Industry in America is currently overregulated, and until the government loosens its grip, the American economy will not grow at the rate needed to bring down the current unemployment numbers.




Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is Simply Disturbing

Boeing 747-400 displaying the post-1997 Speedm...

Image via Wikipedia

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story yesterday about comments Representative Nancy Pelosi made about the Boeing plant that is attempting to open in South Carolina.

The article reports:

In an interview late last week, House Minority Leaeder Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told CNBC that Boeing should either unionize its production facilities in South Carolina, or shut them down entirely.

“Do you think it’s right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it’s non union?” asked host Maria Bartiromo. Pelosi’s reply: “Yes.”

The minority leader quickly added that she would rather it simply unionize and stay open. But barring unionization, by Pelosi’s reasoning, it should simply shut down.

Mr. Morrissey also points out:

Pelosi may or may not know that workers at the South Carolina plant in question voted resoundingly (199-68) to decertify their union two years ago. Government policies that would close the plant for being a non-union shop would simply be punishing those workers for exercising their right to determine union representation for themselves.

As long as the Democrat leadership is in the pockets of the unions, it will be very hard to shrink the size of government and turn the economy around. The workers in South Carolina voted not to unionize. That should have been the end of the story. It is unfortunate that the union-bought Obama Administration chose to get involved through the National Labor Relations Board. We need to understand that even if the plant in South Carolina eventually opens, the amount of time and money spent on the legal battle to open the plant will be a lesson to other companies seeking to open plants in right-to-work states. Again, we need to take a good look at where political money is coming from and vote out anyone being heavily funded by unions.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Fight To Open The Boeing Plant In South Carolina

My photos that I took at today's First Flight ...

Image via Wikipedia

The Hill reported today that the House of Representatives has passed a bill to limit the power of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to dictate to a American company where it can expand its manufacturing.

The article reports:

The House approved H.R. 2587 in a 238-186 vote in which eight Democrats joined Republicans in supporting the bill and seven Republicans voted against it.

The bill is a response to the NLRB’s decision to sue Boeing after it opened a manufacturing plant for its new 787 Dreamliner jet in South Carolina. The NLRB is charging that the plane manufacturer picked South Carolina for new production in order to retaliate against strikes by its unionized workers in Washington state. South Carolina is a right-to-work state that generally bans union membership.

It is ironic that it would have been less complicated for Boeing to move its plant out of the country. That kind of government interference costs American jobs.

It is understood that the bill has little chance of passing in the Senate, but Republicans want a public vote in the Senate on the issue.

The article further reports:

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said the bill would put real limits on the right of workers to bargain collectively. He said the bill would allow companies to say to workers, “Yeah, you have the right to bargain collectively, but if we don’t like what you’re doing, we’re taking a hike.”

Trade associations have lent their significant lobbying weight in support of the bill. Both the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce told lawmakers that they would score votes on the bill.

Conservative activist groups, such as Americans for Prosperity and the Club for Growth, also have pushed for passage of the bill. 

Unions are in opposition, saying the legislation will gut worker protections and undermine the NLRB’s legal authority. 

I don’t know when the NLRB was given the power to tell companies where in the United States they could do business, but I do believe that it is time to take that power away. If corporations cannot meet union demands and still make a profit, they should be free to relocate where unions are not an issue. That used to happen in this country–one of the reasons the textile industry moved out of New England to the southeastern states in the 1950’s was that the southern textile plants were cheaper to operate because they were not unionized. When did companies lose that freedom?

Enhanced by Zemanta