One of the biggest issues facing Americans today is where the Supreme Court will be headed in the next 4 to 8 years. It took over 30 years to undo the Court that back in the 60's and 70's rode roughshod over the American public and forced upon us many ill-advised liberal policies that resulted in the coddling of criminals and walking all over the victims of crimes.
Committee for Justice Executive Director Curt Levey wrote supporters an email which Amanda Carpenter over at TownHall has partially reprinted. Included is a Top Ten list of what we can expect from an Obama Supreme Court. Here they are:
| 10. Expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences 9. Creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning 8. Expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations 7. Prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools 6. Banning the death penalty 5. Requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights 4. Creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs 3. Stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance 2. Eroding property rights 1. Ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage |
Pretty interesting list, especially for those of us who remember how chaotic the 70's were with respect to criminal justice.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
Top 10 Things To Expect From Obama Court
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
July 28, 2008
And the Democrats still don't get it when it comes to energy. What are they thinking? That we won't see through their smoke and mirror tricks?
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, deconstructs the Dems energy non-policy very nicely and in accurate detail.
From the WSJ:
| Consider the details of Drill. It would not have opened new lands to energy exploration. Instead, it would have increased the number of lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve -- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's (ANWR's) sister territory on Alaska's North Slope -- from one lease sale every two years to one every year. The problem here came in the fine print. The bill would have mandated that leasing be done in an undefined, "environmentally responsible" way. ... The Democrats' focus on the National Petroleum Reserve is also striking. While it contains comparable known reserves to ANWR -- 10.6 billion barrels compared to an estimated 10.4 billion barrels in the wildlife refuge -- its fields are spread over 23 million acres. The portion of ANWR territory that should be opened to exploration covers a mere 2,000 acres. The National Petroleum Reserve's fields are a little over 250 miles from the current pipeline infrastructure, while ANWR is only 75 miles away. To top it off, currently there is no production in the National Petroleum Reserve because of ongoing litigation. By focusing on a patch of Arctic tundra more spread out than ANWR, a greater distance from current pipelines, and subject to lawsuits not addressed by the legislation, the Democrats chose to respond to American cries for expedited drilling in such a way that would have made it harder to produce energy. There's more. The Drill Act included "use it or lose it" restrictions that prohibit the federal government from issuing new exploration or production leases anywhere, unless the applicant can certify that every lease currently held is being "diligently developed" (again, to be defined later by lawyers) to produce oil or natural gas. Any lease not meeting the yet-to-be-determined standards would have to be relinquished. |
Clearly, the Dems are scambling to at least present an illusion that they are doing something about soaring energy prices. But they are insulting our collective intelligence by using these idiotic tricks and thinking that we won't see right through them.
You can access the complete article on-line here:
The Democrats' Energy Charade
Michele Bachmann
Wall Street Journal
July 29, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment