Blog

  • Readout of the President’s Dinner with Central and Eastern European Leaders

    04.08.10 12:53 PM

    The President hosted leaders from eleven Central and Eastern European countries for dinner tonight in Prague. Each leader congratulated the President on the historic signing of the New START agreement between the United States and Russia earlier today.

    In discussing European security, the President’s counterparts expressed their view that the improvement in relations between Washington and Moscow has reduced tensions and created new opportunities for them to improve their relations with Russia.

    The leaders agreed that the Atlantic Alliance is central to our shared interests and to global security. The President affirmed the importance of ensuring that Article 5 remains relevant to meeting 21st century threats.

    The leaders also reaffirmed their support and commitment to the NATO mission in Afghanistan and the President thanked each of them for their country’s significant contributions and sacrifices there.

    The leaders agreed on the importance of effectively addressing Iran’s failure to meet its international obligations, and of promoting stability in the Balkans.

    The President met with:

    Prime Minister Boyko Borissov of Bulgaria,

    Prime Minister Jadranka Kosor of Croatia,

    President Vaclav Klaus and Prime Minister Jan Fischer of the Czech Republic,

    President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia,

    Prime Minister Gordon Bajnai of Hungary,

    President Valdis Zatlers of Latvia,

    Prime Minister Andrius Kubilius of Lithuania,

    Prime Minister Donald Tusk of Poland , Prime Minister,

    President Traian Basescu of Romania,

    Prime Minister Robert Fico of Slovakia, and

    Prime Minister Borut Pahor of Slovenia.

    White House.gov Press Office Feed

  • Arizona: House approves Constitutional carry bill

    Posted: 04.09.10 01:13 AM

    The Arizona House voted Thursday to make the state the third in the nation to allow people to carry concealed weapons without a permit, sending the governor a bill that would allow Arizonans to forego background checks and classes that are now required.The legislation, approved by the House 36-19 without discussion, would make it legal for most U.S. citizens 21 or older to carry a concealed weapon in Arizona without the permit now required.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13654

  • Alaska: House Finance OKs 2 bills expanding gun rights

    Posted: 04.09.10 01:12 AM

    The House Finance Committee advanced two bills Thursday to expand gun rights.One bill expands the lawful use of deadly force in self defense. The other restores gun rights for some nonviolent felons. Both now go the House floor.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13653

  • Nebraska: Gun registration in Omaha may stop

    Posted: 04.09.10 01:11 AM

    Omaha will likely be forced to stop requiring those with concealed carry gun permits to register their firearms with the city.On Thursday, lawmakers gave final approval to a bill (LB817) that would stop the practice in Omaha. Gov. Dave Heineman must now decide whether to sign the measure.

    Source: http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=13652

  • SOCKDOLAGER—A Tale of Davy Crockett, Charity and*Congress

    04.08.10 07:01 PM

    A "sockdolager" is a knock-down blow. This is a newspaper reporter’s captivating story of his unforgettable encounter with the old "Bear Hunter" from Tennessee.

    From "The Life of Colonel David Crockett", by Edward S. Ellis
    (Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1884)

    CROCKETT was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

    I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support—rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

    "Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it.

    We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount.

    There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt.

    The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity.

    Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

    He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

    Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

    Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

    I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

    "You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it."

    He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said: "Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen."

    I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

    SEVERAL YEARS AGO I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

    The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

    The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

    So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: "Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted."

    He replied: "I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say."

    I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and…"

    "’Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

    This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

    "Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is."

    "I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question."

    "No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

    "Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with."

    "Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?"

    Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

    "Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did."

    "It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government.

    So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other.

    No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give.

    The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution."

    I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

    "So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you."

    I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

    "Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

    He laughingly replied:

    "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way."

    "If I don’t," said I, "I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

    "No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday a week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

    "Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye… I must know your name."

    "My name is Bunce."

    "Not Horatio Bunce?"

    "Yes."

    "Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go."

    We shook hands and parted.

    It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

    At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

    Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

    I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

    I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him—no, that is not the word—I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

    But to return to my story: The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted—at least, they all knew me.

    In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

    "Fellow citizens—I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

    I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

    "And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

    "It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

    He came upon the stand and said:

    "Fellow citizens—It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

    He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

    I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

    "NOW, SIR," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

    "There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men—men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased—a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

    http://www.personalliberty.com/liber…-and-congress/

  • Research Finds Beneficial Compounds In Pure Maple*Syrup

    04.08.10 07:01 PM

    New research suggests that pouring pure maple syrup on your next order of pancakes will do much more than just give you a sugar high.

    University of Rhode Island researcher Navindra Seeram, who specializes in medicinal plant research, has found more than 20 compounds in maple syrup from Canada that have been linked to human health, 13 of which are newly discovered in maple syrup.

    During his maple syrup research, Seeram and his research team found phenolics, the beneficial class of antioxidant compounds also found in berries. These antioxidants are known to have anti-cancer, anti-bacterial and anti-diabetic properties.

    “We know that plants must have strong antioxidant mechanisms because they are in the sun throughout their lives,” Seeram said. “We already know that berries, because of their bright colors, are high in anti-oxidants. Now we are looking at maple syrup, which comes from the sap located just inside the bark, which is constantly exposed to the sun.”

    Previous research has found that maple syrup is full of naturally occurring minerals such as zinc, thiamine and calcium.

    “Maple syrup is unique in that it is the only commercial product in our diet that comes from a plant’s sap. Canada is the biggest producer of maple syrup and the U.S. is the biggest consumer,” Seeram said.

    http://www.personalliberty.com/news/…yrup-19682759/

  • Pro-business Obama, Expensive Refreshments, Immigration And The*Census

    04.08.10 07:01 PM

    *Obama said what about being pro-business? At first I thought it was an April Fool’s joke, but this happened in February. In an interview with Business Week magazine, President Obama said that he and his top officials are all “fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.” In fact, the president claimed, his administration has promoted a “fundamentally business-friendly agenda.” Sure, if raising taxes, increasing rules and regulations, taking over of medical care and increasing dependence on subsidies are good for business, I guess you can call him pro-business.

    *How much would you pay for a cookie and a Coke? USA Today reports that during a three-day conference for its procurement officials (these are the folks whose job it is to buy things at the lowest possible price); NASA paid $62,611 for the 317 attendees to snack on “light refreshments.” That works out to $66 a day for coffee, soft drinks, bagels and cookies. This is just one more example of how careless bureaucrats can be when it comes to spending your money instead of their own.

    *At least they don’t all want to come here. The Pew Hispanic Center conducted a survey of how many citizens of Mexico would prefer to live in the United States. Guess what? The report says 46 percent of the population would move north if they could. Gee, that’s only another 49 million immigrants. I expected the number to be higher. Are we sure they asked the question in Spanish?

    *Can we outsource the census? The U.S. Census Bureau reports that it will spend $14 billion to count all of the people in the U.S. this year. With a total population of around 309 million, that works out to $45 a head. India, meanwhile, is also conducting a census of its population. With a total population of around 1.2 billion people, they expect it to cost $1.2 billion to count them all, or about $1 a head. Next time can we outsource our count to them?

    —Chip Wood

    http://www.personalliberty.com/chip-…and-thecensus/

  • Confucius to Their Enemies: China’s Investment in Public Diplomacy

    On 04.09.10 07:00 AM posted by Helle Dale

    <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/wp-content/uploads/Confucius.jpg"></p>Anyone who doubts the value of money spent on competition in the world of ideas – a key aspect of public diplomacy – needs to take a look at what the Chinese are doing in this field. Aspiring to promote their own model of governance, in opposition to that of the United States and the West, the Chinese are investing heavily in making friends overseas. Indeed, there is a real danger of the United States being out-done, for reasons of limited resources and a lack of strategy. The Chinese have both in spades.

    According to <ahref="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/apr/08/china-60-us-0-culture-centers-in-others-country/">The Washington Times, Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to account for the fact that China has been able to open 60 cultural centers – so-called Confucius Centers – hosted at universities across the country, such as the University of Minnesota. The centers endow chairs in Chinese language and culture studies and partner with existing university programs, creating hubs for Chinese cultural and political influence. China has established Confucius Centers in many Asian countries, making a Chinese presence felt in a way the United States simply does not. They also allow China convenient covers for “minders” of Chinese exchange student populations in the United States and elsewhere.<spanid="more-30945"></span>

    The Chinese strategy goes back at least as far as 2003, when the Chinese Communist Party promulgated its White Paper “China’s Peaceful Development Road.” In Foreign Affairs magazine in 2005, Chinese strategist Zheng Bijian laid out the concept of ideological competition for all to see, “China does not seek hegemony or predominance in world affairs. It advocates a new international political and economic order, one that can be achieved through incremental reforms and the democratization of international relations.”

    By comparison, the United States so far has no – zero – cultural centers (or comparable institutions) in China. During a hearing in February, Lugar grilled Secretary of State Clinton on the issue, and was told that the United States does not have the money to do what the Chinese are doing. “On the Confucius Centers, the Chinese government provides each center with $1 million to launch, plus they cover operating expenses that exceed $200,000 per year,” she said. “We don’t have that kind of money in the budget, so we are limited in the numbers that we can do.” Directors at the Confucius Centers told The Times that their grants are more modest, in the $100,000-$200,000 range, and are often partnered with existing programs. Either way, the Chinese have found a model that works in free societies.

    Now, the idea that the United States cannot afford what China can afford is preposterous — with an economy three times that of the Chinese, it is hardly a matter of money. The problem here is priorities and access. In the FY 2011 budget, the U.S. State Department has asked for a modest $14.5 million to fund 8-10 American cultural centers – to serve the entire globe. And of course China does not allow the openness* for the United States to partner with existing academic institutions.

    Since the end of the Cold War and the demise of the United States Information Agency, public diplomacy as an arm of U.S. foreign policy has received short shrift, the primacy of Western ideas being taken for granted. That is not good enough anymore.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…lic-diplomacy/

  • In the Green Room: Judge Andrew Napolitano on Tea Parties and Why Obamacare is Uncons

    On 04.09.10 06:00 AM posted by Brandon Stewart

    </p>This week, Judge Andrew Napolitano, <ahref="http://www.foxnews.com/bios/talent/andrew-p-napolitano/">senior judicial analyst at the Fox News channel and author of the new book, <ahref="http://www.judgenap.com/">Lies the Government Told You, stopped by the Heritage Foundation to talk about his thoughts about the tea party movement and its prospects for the future.

    He also explained why he feels that Obamacare is unconstitutional and sketched out some points that might form a basis for a possible legal challenge.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…onstitutional/

  • Not the Change Americans are Looking For

    On 04.09.10 05:25 AM posted by Nick Loris

    If you’re not willing to make significant sacrifices in your life to save the environment, don’t worry, you’re not alone. A <ahref="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/65_say_americans_not_willing_to_make_major_lifesty le_changes_to_help_environment">new Rasmussen survey “shows that only 17% of adults believe most Americans would be willing to make major cutbacks in their lifestyle in order to help save the environment. Most (65%) say that’s not the case.” But that’s the name of the game for radical environmental agendas and even government regulations geared towards forcing Americans to use less energy.* Environmentalists want people to dramatically change their behavior. Of the ideas suggested by environmentalists or proposed/enacted by Members of Congress, what would the respondents consider major cutbacks?

    • <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/The-Economic-Impact-of-the-Waxman-Markey-Cap-and-Trade-Bill">Paying significantly higher electricity bills.
    • <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/What-Boxer-Kerry-Will-Cost-the-Economy">More pain at the gas pump
    • <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/02/epa%e2%80%99s-fuel-efficiency-standards-bad-news-for-the-consumer/">Forced into smaller, less safe vehicles
    • <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/23/reducing-your-carbon-paw-print/">Swapping your pet cat or dog for a pet you can eat
    • <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/27/eat-tofu-save-a-planet/">Reducing your meat consumption
    • <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/02/school-choice-bad-for-the-environment/">Eliminating school choice
    • <ahref="http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/01/renewable-energy-goals-could-force-blackouts-in-britain/">Rolling brownouts and blackouts
    • <ahref="http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/01/The-EPAs-Global-Warming-Regulation-Plans">Regulations on schools, farms, restaurants, hospitals, apartment complexes, churches, and anything with a motor—from motor vehicles to lawnmowers, jet skis, and leaf blowers.

    These are just a few examples of environmental alarmist ideas to reduce our nation’s carbon footprint or actual government-proposed laws and regulations.* Are those major enough?

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…e-looking-for/

  • Morning Bell: Heritage Action for America

    On 04.09.10 04:34 AM posted by Ed Feulner

    These are historic and exciting times. Yesterday, The Heritage Foundation took a bold and forward-looking step. Our Board of Trustees approved launching a grassroots advocacy organization to help press the conservative cause with our nation’s lawmakers. The independent organization will be called “Heritage Action for America.”

    Over the last two years, Heritage membership has skyrocketed. Over 633,000 Americans now proudly call themselves a Member of The Heritage Foundation. That staggering number, more than double our 2008 total, testifies to the quality and appeal of our original research and principled policy recommendations.

    Americans are more engaged and better informed than ever before. They’re not only opposing the “progressive” ideas emanating from Washington, but they’re educating themselves on the details, and the alternatives. That is where we come in. Over the past two years, no organization has come close to us in offering fact-based analysis of health care reform, energy and the environment, our nation’s defenses, the government’s fiscal irresponsibility, the entitlement crisis, education, the free enterprise system, American values, and the rule of law.

    The Heritage Foundation is, and will always remain, a beacon of scholarly leadership for conservative policy ideas. What Heritage Action for America will offer are better ways to advance conservative policies at the grassroots level and to aggressively market our ideas. And in doing so, Heritage will once again break new ground. Many organizations in Washington have gone in the opposite direction, establishing a think tank as a façade intended to add credibility to their political goals. <spanid="more-30895"></span>

    President Ronald Reagan once said: “If you can’t make them see the light, make them feel the heat.” Heritage Action for America will be the heat, harnessing grassroots energy to increase the pressure on Members of Congress to embrace The Heritage Foundation’s policy recommendations.

    Heritage Action for America will not get involved in election campaigns. The creation of a sister organization involved in issue advocacy in no way leads The Heritage Foundation away from its stated mission: To build an America where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish.

    America stands at the crossroads. We can become just another European-style welfare state or we can switch course and return to our roots of personal liberty, limited government and responsible stewardship. Charting our course will require intellectual firepower and grassroots political heft. With the creation of Heritage Action, we aim to harness the energy of both.

    Heritage grew from a small townhouse on Capitol Hill in the 1970s to what the New York Times currently describes as the <ahref="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/01/magazine/01republicans-t.html">“Parthenon of the conservative metropolis” or more aptly, “the beast” of the think tank universe. Growth is good. It’s the American dream, and we fight for everyone to share a piece of the American dream everyday.

    I thank you for continuing to support that fight. You can visit Heritage Action at <ahref="http://heritageforamerica.org/">HeritageForAmerica.org

    Quick Hits:

    • Economists at the International Monetary Fund project that the amount of <ahref=" http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR2010040801759.html">government debt held in the world’s advanced economies will soon be so great that it surpasses the value of what they produce in a year.
    • The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said Thursday that <ahref="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/35546.html#ixzz0kWyImUNC">our nation’s fiscal path is “unsustainable,” and the problem “cannot be solved through minor tinkering.”
    • CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf confirmed yesterday that he’s been getting “a lot of questions” about <ahref="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/its-cbo-fielding-vat-questions-congress-0">Value Added Tax (VAT) from Congress.
    • The Labor Department said in its weekly report that the number of U.S. workers filing <ahref=" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052702304198004575171620576313354.html"> new claims for jobless benefits rose unexpectedly last week.
    • The Obama administration is now <ahref=" http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2010/04/08/breaking-obama-administration-denies-visas-to-israeli-nuclear-scientists/">denying U.S. visas to Israeli scientists and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu <ahref="http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=172707">called off his trip to attend President Obama’s nuclear conference in Washington.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2010/04/09/…n-for-america/

  • Cellebrite image shows off Verizon’s Nexus One

    CelleBrite machines Nexus One

    If Verizon’s sponsoring an Android marathon to save the poor little tech-thirsty consumers, the HTC Incredible and Nexus One are neck and neck, approaching the launch finish line.  The two devices are arguably the most sought after Android-based phones expected to hit Verizon any minute now, and the only way for either of them to get ahead is a confirmed launch date straight from the mouth of Verizon (or possibly Google, in the case of the Nexus One).

    With the flood of rumors about the Incredible this week, it could be difficult for the N1 to gain ground, especially since we’re looking at an all-but-confirmed launch date of April 29 for the Incredible.  However, keep in mind it only takes but a small bit of code for Google to flip the proverbial switch that puts the VZW Nexus One up for sale at the Google store.  That being said, it looks like Android Central has uncovered another image of a CelleBrite device.  This time the image is displaying the “HTC Google Nexus One,” giving us hope that the imminent VZW N1 launch is upon us.  We are still without date and price, but remember, “good things come to those who wait.”

    Sing it with me folks, “CelleBrite good times, come on! Android celebration!”  Who do you think will win the race?  Sound off in the comments!

    Via Android Central


  • Twitter: redesign a caminho

    Doug Bowman, director criativo do Twitter revelou no seu profile no site Dribbble que a rede social está em vias de fazer uma “renovação significativa” no layout do site. A acompanhar esta revelação, Bowman postou uma screenshot que mostra parte do que será o novo layout do Twitter:

    Embora esta screenshot ainda seja muito vaga, já é possível reparar na nova arrumação de alguns componentes, tal como a barra de controlos situada no topo da janela de conteúdos e a adição de estatísticas de tweets no lado direito das páginas dos perfis de utilizador. A data de implementação deste novo layout ainda não foi divulgada.

    WebTugaTwitter: redesign a caminho

  • Volcanoes on Venus Could be Alive & Ready to Erupt | 80beats

    Venus VolcanoThe moment you read this, volcanic eruptions could be happening on Venus.

    Planetary astronomers have been debating whether Venus is or was geologically active, and whether the geologic hotspots previous missions saw mean that Venus is one of the few places in the solar system to have experienced volcanism. Now, according to data from the European Space Agency’s Venus Express mission, there’s every reason to believe that Venus not only has been geologically active and volcanic during its lifetime, but also might still be today, according to Jörn Helbert, coauthor of the study in Science. “The solidified lava flows, which radiate heat from the surface, seem hardly weathered. So we can conclude that they are younger than 2.5 million years old — and the majority are probably younger than 250,000 years…. In geological terms, this means that they are practically from the present day” [Wired.com].

    Previous maps of Venus showed features that looked like large shield volcanoes, such as Hawaii’s Kilauea and Mauna Loa. Some of these rise roughly a mile above the surrounding plain and have rise diameters that span more than 1,600 miles [Christian Science Monitor]. And gravity measurements suggested large pools of magma lie beneath the surface of these formations. For this study, the Venus Express measured the composition of the surface materials near these hotspots, and found just the concentration of iron-bearing materials you’d expect from from volcanism. The researchers then used that chemical composition to estimate how long the material had been exposed to the conditions on Venus’ surface. The answer? The blink of an eye, in geologic terms.

    Study coauthor Suzanne Smrekar says it’s even possible that scientists spotted a volcanic eruption on Venus last July, when a mysterious bright spot was seen in the Venusian atmosphere. Smrekar and several of her colleagues are following up on this event to see if a volcanic eruption from one of these hotspots coincides with the spot and could feasibly explain it. If so, then that link could serve as further evidence that Venus’ volcanoes are still active. “We’re kind of going from warm, warmer, warmest to maybe really hot,” Smrekar said [MSNBC].

    Besides the thrill that Venus could be geologically alive, the possibility of ongoing volcanic activity could help to clear up a mystery about the planet. One need only look up at the cratered moon on a clear night to be reminded that the inner solar system has endured periods of heavy asteroid bombardment. But Venus, our probes have shown, is not a particularly puckered place, so somehow it must have been resurfaced. Because Venus lacks the water that’s apparently necessary for plate tectonics, the most likely explanation for Venus’ smoother surface (and also how heat escapes its interior) is through volcanic eruptions.

    Helbert and colleagues plan to try to recreate some of the surface conditions of Venus in the lab to test out their ideas. But that might not be the only way to answer the intriguing outlying questions about our sister planet. Future landers could get better measurements of conditions there, which would aid lab experiments that try to mimic weathering processes on the sweltering planet’s surface [MSNBC].

    Related Content:
    80beats: New Images Suggest Hellish Venus Was Once More Like Earth
    80beats: Venus May Have Once Had Oceans, But the Water Didn’t Last
    80beats: Mercury Flyby Reveals Magnetic Twisters and Ancient Magma Oceans
    DISCOVER: Venus Exposed explains how researchers look beneath the planet’s thick clouds

    Image: NASA/JPL/ESA


  • Reaction to Justice Stevens Retirement

    Statement of Chief Justice Roberts:

    Associate Justice John Paul Stevens has earned the gratitude and admiration of the American people for his nearly 40 years of distinguished service to the Judiciary, including more than 34 years on the Supreme Court. He has enriched the lives of everyone at the Court through his intellect, independence, and warm grace. We have all been blessed to have John as our colleague and his wife Maryan as our friend. We will miss John’s presence in our daily work, but will take joy in his and Maryan’s continued friendship in the years ahead.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Comment Of Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.),

    Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

    April 9, 2010

    When the Supreme Court recesses on Justice Stevens’ final day on the bench, it will mark the end of an extraordinary judicial career spanning four decades, including 35 years on our highest court.

    The last Justice from “the Greatest Generation,” John Paul Stevens first answered the call to service when he joined the Navy during World War II. Our nation called on him again years later, and he returned to public service as an appellate judge before accepting President Ford’s nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. He has since become one of the longest serving Justices on the Court. His confirmation was the first of a dozen Supreme Court nominations I have considered in my years in the Senate. As a young, freshman senator, it was a privilege to support his confirmation in 1975.

    Justice Stevens’ unique and enduring perspective is irreplaceable; his stalwart adherence to the rule of law is unparalleled. The federal judiciary, and indeed the entire nation, will miss his principled jurisprudence. While it is with a heavy heart, I wish him the best in his retirement.

    As we move forward with preparations for the second Supreme Court nomination of this Congress, I am reminded of the Vermont marble inscribed above the entrance of the Supreme Court which pledges “Equal Justice Under Law.” I hope that Senators on both sides of the aisle will make this process a thoughtful and civil discourse. I expect President Obama to continue his practice of consulting with members on both sides of the aisle as he considers this important nomination. The decisions of the Supreme Court are often made by only five individuals, but they impact the daily lives of each and every American. All Senators should strive to fulfill their constitutional duty of advise and consent, and give fair and thorough consideration to Justice Stevens’ successor.

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    HATCH STATEMENT ON SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEVENS RETIREMENT

    SALT LAKE CITY –U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), a member and former Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, issued the following statement today after Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens announced his retirement today:

    “Justice Stevens’ has had a profound impact on the judiciary and the law. He is a remarkably dedicated public servant and a profoundly decent human being. All Americans should thank him for his dedicated service and we all wish him a happy and healthy retirement.

    “Every President has an obligation to nominate Judges who understand and are committed to their proper role in our system of government. As I have said for many years, someone who would be an activist judge, who would substitute their own views for what the law requires, is not qualified to serve on the federal bench. The confirmation process should be fair and thorough, and the President’s nominee should be judged by this standard. I look forward to participating in this process when the President announces his nominee to the nation’s highest court.”

    ###

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    McConnell Statement on Justice Stevens

     

    LOUISVILLEU.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement on Friday regarding the announced retirement of Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens:

     

    “John Paul Stevens has said that he never felt the need to break any records, but judging by his legendary vigor it seems highly likely that he could have shattered the record for longest-serving Supreme Court justice if he had wanted to. I commend Justice Stevens for his lifelong commitment to public service, from his early days fighting corruption in Chicago, to his work in naval intelligence during the Second World War, to his more than three decades on the nation’s highest court. Even if Justice Stevens’ liberalism has led to many decisions I oppose, I respect his devotion to the institution and the gentlemanly manner in which he always carried out his work. I wish Justice Stevens and his wife Maryan all the best in their future endeavors. 

     

    “As we await the President’s nominee to replace Justice Stevens at the end of his term, Americans can expect Senate Republicans to make a sustained and vigorous case for judicial restraint and the fundamental importance of an even-handed reading of the law.”

     

    ###

  • Ruby Tuesday Will Pay You Fifty Cents To Eat This Sandwich

    The economics of the restaurant business are strange and confusing. But Dave writes that he couldn’t help but find this deal at Ruby Tuesday amusing. You can have a nice salad bar lunch for $7.99…or some mini sandwiches or burgers and fries along with salad bar access for $7.99. After 3 p.m., the price for the salad bar goes up fifty cents…but the price of the sandwiches does not.

    I noticed this strange pricing issue on the Ruby Tuesdays menu. Their new Pimento Cheese Sandwich minis item (available in the Combinations section) is $7.99 with the salad bar. The salad bar, itself, is $7.99 ($8.49 after 3 p.m.). So basically, you get the sandwiches for free until 3… and after 3 they PAY YOU fifty cents to take the sandwiches in addition to the salad bar!

    If you go to Ruby Tuesdays for dinner just for the salad bar, order the Pimento Cheese Sandwich Minis combo and have them hold the sandwiches to save fifty cents.

    sammich.jpg

    (The item with just the salad bar is cut off of Dave’s picture, but it is on the menu.)

    Asking them to hold the sandwiches will probably make your server’s brain explode, but I dare someone to try this and take the sandwiches home.

    I remember having this argument with my parents in a Ponderosa restaurant circa 1995.

    Mom: Order a steak. Steak with the salad bar is only $1 more than just the salad bar, which you always get.
    Me: But I don’t eat steak.
    Dad: I’ll eat the $1 steak.
    Me: *exaggerated teenage sigh and eyeroll* FINE.

  • Mischa Barton Being Branded “Fat” By Ex Brandon Davis

    Mischa Barton was reportedly “visibly upset” after her ex-boyfriend Brandon Davis (AKA Fat Elvis) called her “one of the fattest people on the planet” in a Twitter post this week.

    “Omg (oh my God). Just realized my ex turned in to 1 of the fattest people on the planet. I’m gonna start dating plus size models. Not! Mischa the Hefer (sic),” the oil heir wrote in a mean-spirited Tweet.

    Davis aimed the cruel comments at former The OC star after spotting her at Nylon Magazine’s 11th Anniversary Bash in Los Angeles.


  • Understanding the state

    YESTERDAY, I linked to a Democracy in America post highlighting results from the latest Economist/YouGov poll. In it, Americans expressed support for spending cuts as a means to deficit reduction, but the only cuts on which a majority of participants could agree were those to foreign aid. Which makes up less than 1% of spending. Meanwhile, Larry Kudlow seems to think that the best way to cut the deficit is to slash pay for federal employees. Paul Krugman notes that most people just don’t understand what government spends its money on:

    The basic picture of the federal government you should have in mind is that it’s essentially a huge insurance company with an army; Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid — all of which spend the great bulk of their funds on making payments, not on administration — plus defense are the big items. Salaries aren’t.

    That’s basically right. Some would-be reformers want to wipe out earmarks, but that spending is pretty tiny, too. If you add up all non-defence discretionary spending, you get to maybe a fifth of the total budget, and much of that goes to things that people don’t like to see cut, like transportation funding, or enforcement of critical regulatory policies.

    This all should make sense. Deficit-cutting is popular, and there are only a few million federal employees. If the deficit could be meaningfully reduced by cutting pay for (or firing) surplus government staffers, then the political calculus would mean that those workers would be cleaning out their desks yesterday. Politicians tend to do popular things that are easy to do. But deficit cutting is a popular thing that’s very, very hard to do.

  • Video: Mike Lillis and Ed Schultz Discuss Massey Energy’s Safety Record

    Mike Lillis appeared on MSNBC’s The Ed Show last night, discussing the hundreds of safety violations racked up by Massey Energy, the company whose coal mine in West Virginia exploded on Monday, killing at least 25 workers. Watch the video clip after the jump:

    Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

  • John Paul Stevens Letter to President Obama

    CHAMBERS OF

    JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS

    April 9, 2010

    My dear Mr. President:

    Having concluded that it would be in the best

    interests of the Court to have my successor appointed

    and confirmed well in advance of the commencement of

    the Court’s next Term, I shall retire from regular

    active service as an Associate Justice, under the

    provisions of 28 D.S.C. § 371(b), effective the next

    day after the Court rises for the summer recess this

    year.

    Most respectfully yours,

    John Paul Stevens

    The President

    The White House

    Washington, D.C. 20500