The North Carolina House has voted to cancel out Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue's veto of the two-year state budget.
The vote Wednesday just after midnight was 73-46. That's just enough to meet the three-fifths majority required to override a veto.
3. "Culled data... Keynesian catnip": Right. When the data contradict your deeply held beliefs, the data must be wrong.The charge comes in different forms and it is partially correct. In fact, I question "the data" ( is it complete? is it manipulated? what agenda may be driving the data?) as it is always presented through the massaging magic of statistics.
Two Cape Fear region lawmakers who are key figures in the state budget battle say they will vote to override Gov. Bev Perdue's budget veto.
Rep. William Brisson and Rep. Dewey Hill are among the five Democrats in the House who voted for the budget. Four are needed to override the veto.
Judge Biery’s ruling banned students and other speakers from using religious language in their speeches. Among the banned words or phrases are: “join in prayer,” “bow their heads,” “amen,” and “prayer.”
He also ordered the school district to remove the terms “invocation” and “benediction” from the graduation program.
“These terms shall be replaced with ‘opening remarks’ and ‘closing remarks,’” the judge’s order stated. His ruling also prohibits anyone from saying, “in [a deity’s name] we pray.”
Lord, I thank you so much for the blessing of this day. And I just thank you for the amazing group of people that you surrounded me with.
God, I thank you for the support of our whole entire community through this case hearing; and also for Erin (Leu)and all the people at the Liberty Institute; and my parents, who’ve helped get me through the last couple of days.
Lord, I just thank you so much for your presence in our lives through these 18 years. And I just praise you for your incredible faithfulness through all adversity and all joy.
God, I thank you for the men and women who have given their lives helping to give us, and protect, the freedoms that we have today. And I ask that you please keep your hand of guidance on all of them — past, present and future military.
God, I thank you just so much for the freedom to be here today. And most of all, I thank you for loving us first.
God, I ask that you please keep each of us safe and well, as we all go our separate ways. And I can’t wait to see where you’ll be leading each of us. I ask that you’ll ask us all to remember where we come from, and to know where we stand.
God, I thank you for the gift of your Son and for the forgiveness that surpasses all understanding. And most of all, I thank you for your great love for us, and for our great nation, where we are free.
And it’s in Jesus’ name I pray, Amen.
Bottom line; either a significant portion of seniors are going to be eating cat food, or the next few generations are going to be paying (unfairly) through the nose.
...
To me, it is absolutely insane to think that the Baby Boomers (I’m one) can put the burden of SS on younger workers. This simply will not work. The result of a policy approach that sticks everyone under 50 with the cost of the Boomers is going to result in deep social divides. We have enough problems in our society today. We don’t need/want Age Warfare to be added to the list. But if the plan to “fix” SS is one that sticks the bill onto young people we WILL have age warfare, it’s inevitable. The social consequences would be greater than the economic costs. Why does no one see this?
...
The solution(s) have to be born (largely) by the Baby Boomers themselves. Post the Boomers, SS can be a PayGo concept. But the transition is not PayGo. It is a huge inter-generational transfer of wealth. This means that well off Boomers (there are many, including myself) are going to have to dig into their pockets to support those in their age group who did not fair so well. That, in my opinion, is the only viable solution. That would be more representative of the American way. Fairness.
Are we living at the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, not its final decades? The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.
What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong? …
If gas hydrates as well as shale gas, tight oil, oil sands and other unconventional sources can be tapped at reasonable cost, then the global energy picture looks radically different than it did only a few years ago. Suddenly it appears that there may be enough accessible hydrocarbons to power industrial civilization for centuries, if not millennia, to come.
So much for the specter of depletion, as a reason to adopt renewable energy technologies like solar power and wind power. Whatever may be the case with Peak Oil in particular, the date of Peak Fossil Fuels has been pushed indefinitely into the future. What about national security as a reason to switch to renewable energy?
The U.S., Canada and Mexico, it turns out, are sitting on oceans of recoverable natural gas. Shale gas is combined with recoverable oil in the Bakken “play” along the U.S.-Canadian border and the Eagle Ford play in Texas. The shale gas reserves of China turn out to be enormous, too. Other countries with now-accessible natural gas reserves, according to the U.S. government, include Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, France, Poland and India.
The transformation of Americans from a nation of savers and entrepreneurs in the era of the family farm to a nation of consumers in the last eighty years was a fateful one. Our ancestors thought that debt was shameful and a burden; we’ve come to think of cheap debt as part of our birthright. The American Dream as we’ve known it entailed a lifestyle based on permanent debt. The growth of the American economy depended on growing debt at every level from federal Keynesian stimulus to credit card and mortgage debt.
Washington, Nov. 21, 1864
Dear Madam,
I have been shown in the files of the War Department a statement of the Adjutant General of Massachusetts that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any word of mine which should attempt to beguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrain from tendering you the consolation that may be found in the thanks of the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom.
Yours, very sincerely and respectfully,
A. Lincoln
-------------------------------This suggests a belief in moral certitude. Many cringe at the thought, but in an interview in which he was requested to define what conservatism is he refused, arguing that doing so could lead to the exclusion of those who define conservative as differently. Instead, he chose to define only what conservatism is to him. This is moral certitude practiced on the individual level. There is another term for this - individualism.
The challenge of globalization, the war for freedom against terrorists, the rise of Communist China and whether moral relativism erodes a nation built on self-evident truth.
While there has been buzz in the Beltway that McCotter could run for the Republican nomination, he has yet to take any formal steps in the race. Obama leads him in the poll 43 percent to 19 percent …
In an interview Monday with POLITICO, Michigan Rep. Thaddeus McCotter said he’s seriously considering a White House bid and will decide within the next two weeks.
There’s no one I’d like to see more at a debate than McCotter,” gushed conservative Web impresario Andrew Breitbart. “This is a guy that’s blunt, sarcastic, pop-culture-savvy, constitutionally sound and an authentic voice.
On Friday, he said his decision was largely based on timing.
He said he wasn't ready to commit to running against Stabenow right now but that waiting -- "playing around like Hamlet," is how he put it -- wouldn't be fair to the potential candidates who might run. Uncertainty about a McCotter campaign could hurt their efforts to gain ground in polls and raise money.
"That wouldn't be cool," said McCotter, who has been talked about in some conservative circles as an outside prospect to run for president.
Going forward Obama will be forced down another predetermined path. He will direct the US to help install a democracy in Libya. If he fails to do so his invasion of Libya will be seen as a failure.
Some presidents engineer events as Bush did through the Bush Doctrine, while others are lead by events. In this case Obama is being lead by the ongoing forces of the Bush Doctrine.
It leaves one to wonder, though, did Bush create the Bush Doctrine or was it simply his only choice?
Let me be specific. It will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the region, and to support transitions to democracy.Yes, this. First, is the Bush Doctrine ... democratization. And for proof of concept Obama points to ... Iraq?
In Iraq, we see the promise of a multiethnic, multisectarian democracy. There, the Iraqi people have rejected the perils of political violence for a democratic process . . . Iraq is poised to play a key role in the region.And with the Bush Doctrine again firmly defining American actions in the Middle East Obama turns to Assad of Syria:...
We have a stake not just in the stability of nations, but in the self-determination of individuals.
President Assad now has a choice: he can lead that transition [to democracy], or get out of the way.Obama ran against the Bush Doctrine during his campaign. He is now the driving force behind the Bush Doctrine. Obama, lead by world events rather than leading them, has been mugged by the reality of those world events.
In it Newt attacked the Ryan plan, supported a "version of the individual mandate and is forced to defend himself from accusations of "coded" racism which required one to don Gregory's racism to see.
I didn't realize these three issues were in a single interview.
On the Ryan bit Newt seemed to attack social engineering from the left and right based on whether they mandated individuals to make a predetermined decision. He seemed to argue that we need a plan that allows people to "voluntarily migrate to better solutions" and that the Ryan plan did not meet that need. Later, though, he contradicted himself and expressed support for a version of the individual mandate.
We saw Newt fail in his attempt to position himself between the Ryan plan and the see-no-deficit democrats and in the process lose his establishment support. Then then we saw him loose his base and Tea Party support when he expressed support for the individual mandate.
Newt is headed into a primary election not a general election, so now is not the time for triangulation failed or otherwise. In this interview he lost his support in the primaries from his base, the establishment, and the Tea Party.
Newt burned himself.
I'm sad to see him go as I had looked forward to what Newt would have brought to the debates.
Newt Gingrich, what you just did to Paul Ryan was unforgivable… You undercut him and his allies in the House. You’re an embarrassment to the party.
