Shortly after he was confirmed as governor of New York earlier this year, David Paterson told a group of business executives that when he received congratulations from old friends he hadn't heard from in years, he was surprised how many no longer lived in New York.

Read Full Article

"All of them basically said the same thing," Paterson told the group. " 'Good luck in New York state, but we can't pay the taxes. The opportunities aren't there.' "

After that experience, Paterson presumably can understand the complaints of corporate executives recently surveyed by Development Counsellors International, which advises companies on where to locate their facilities.

More than four in 10 of them have ranked New York as the worst state to do business in — second only to California in unfavorable mentions.

The most common gripes included high taxes and anti-business regulations. Joining New York and California on the list of most unpopular states are New Jersey, Michigan and Massachusetts.

Paterson argued creatively that the rest of the country should come to his aid because the Empire State is home to the country's financial markets and thereby contributes disproportionately to the American economy — although I can imagine many states would gladly take those financial institutions off of New York's hands if the governor considers them such a burden.

Read Full Article

A few days later, he clarified his remarks, saying he's not calling for direct cash payments to descendents of slaves, but rather indirect aid in the form of government programs that will "close the gap" between what he sees as white America and black America.

He says government should offer "universal" programs — such as universal health care, universal mortgage credits, college tuition, job training and even universal 401(k)s — that "disproportionately affect people of color."

In other words, reparations by another name.

Obama knows that if he pushes too hard on reparations, he might scare off white voters. So he couches race-specific welfare as "universal" social programs that appeal to broad-based political coalitions — "even if they disproportionately help minorities," he confides in his book, "Audacity of Hope."

Obama has a name for his scheme: "universal strategies."

Maybe so. But not all his plans for reparations are roundabout. His book and Web site outline a separate plan calling for essentially a government bailout of the inner cities.

This is just a down payment on the "economic justice" Obama has promised the NAACP — financed by "tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth," he says in his book.

And the indirect aid he's proposing now could quickly turn into cash transfers once Obama is safely ensconced in the White House.

Claiming "blacks were forced into ghettos," Obama is certainly sympathetic to the idea of reparations. His church has actively petitioned for them for decades. And he's strongly suggested there's a legal case to be made for them.

"So many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow," he said. "We still haven't fixed them."

He assumes the economic gap is a legacy of discrimination and largely unrelated to personal responsibility. He also makes it seem things haven't gotten better for blacks.

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Bob Corker of Tennessee, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and John Thune of South Dakota — remember their names if things go badly for the GOP this November.

With the issue of domestic drilling to provide relief for suffering consumers landing right in the laps of embattled congressional Republicans, those five — none of whom faces any immediate danger of losing his seat — decided to join with some crafty Democrats and smash to pieces that gift from the heavens.

The "compromise" they are promoting is actually a wholesale giveaway to Democrats. Touted as a drilling plan, it actually imposes about $84 billion in new taxes on oil companies and keeps the offshore and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling bans.

These GOP stooges could end up being the Five Fingers of Death for their party come November.

Read Full Article

It's obvious that Tehran is stalling. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad knows that the most serious nation in the group — the U.S. — is going through a change of administrations, and that all he has to do is wait. If Barack Obama wins — and Iran 's leaders clearly believe he will — then game over. Obama won't be nearly as tough or as resilient as President Bush, or even France's Nicolas Sarkozy.

That's the game we're playing. Iran has doubled to 6,000 the number of high-tech centrifuges it has working to turn raw yellowcake uranium into highly refined nuclear material that can be used in a bomb. And tests of its Shahab-3 missiles, capable of reaching Europe, show Tehran is serious about its threats.

China's daily need for oil is growing by half a million barrels a year. It's also building a blue ocean navy to rival ours. Think it wants to help?

Russia, meanwhile, has hundreds of billions of dollars worth of construction projects in Iran. And just last week, it released a strategic plan, "Concept to Develop the Russian Armed Forces until 2030," that recognizes the U.S. as the world's sole superpower and one of Russia's biggest threats.

Here are two major members of the Security Council, each viewing the U.S. as a potential foe and neither wanting to upset Iran. From them we can expect no help.

Those who still think Iran poses no threat should think again. So should those who think time is on our side. Iran has repeatedly threatened to get rid of Israel, and three weeks have already passed since Mohamad ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, declared that Iran could have a bomb "within six months" — just in time for a new American president to take office.

Israel says it can take out Iran's nukes, and there's no reason to doubt that. If it does, the U.S. should be prepared to give any aid Israel needs — including using those powerful Gulf battle groups.

That's because the plan is a Democratic giveaway. New production on offshore federal lands is left to state legislatures, and then in only four coastal states. The regulatory hurdles are huge. And the bill bars drilling within 50 miles of the coast -- putting off limits some of the most productive areas. Alaska's oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is still a no-go.

The highlight is instead $84 billion in tax credits, subsidies and federal handouts for alternative fuels and renewables. The Gang of 10 intends to pay for all this in part by raising taxes on . . . oil companies! The Sierra Club couldn't have penned it better. And so the Republican Five has potentially given antidrilling Democrats the political cover they need to neutralize energy through November.

The "bipartisan" Republican senators have undercut these efforts, and boosted Ms. Landrieu. They've even put a smile on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's face. He'd been struggling to tamp down the energy debate through November, where he hopes to increase his majority and permanently shelve drilling. He's now counting on the Gang to fruitlessly continue "negotiations" straight through the Senate's short September session and solve his problem for him.

Not one of the five Republicans in the Gang is facing a tough election this year. That's the sort of security that leads to bad decisions. And theirs is the sort of thinking that could leave Republicans in a permanent minority.

How to anger conservatives into action

Try sending them a letter in an attempt to intimidate them into silence:

Nearly 10,000 of the biggest donors to Republican candidates and causes across the country will probably receive a foreboding “warning” letter in the mail next week.

The letter is an opening shot across the bow from an unusual new outside political group on the left that is poised to engage in hardball tactics to prevent similar groups on the right from getting off the ground this fall.

Led by Tom Matzzie, a liberal political operative who has been involved with some prominent left-wing efforts in recent years, the newly formed nonprofit group, Accountable America, is planning to confront donors to conservative groups, hoping to create a chilling effect that will dry up contributions. …

The warning letter is intended as a first step, alerting donors who might be considering giving to right-wing groups to a variety of potential dangers, including legal trouble, public exposure and watchdog groups digging through their lives.

Sorry, but if you think brown-shirt intimidation letters from lunatic Lefties such as yourself will frighten conservatives into silence, then you don’t know squat.  Conservatives persevere despite media scorn, Hollywood demonizing, and lunatic protests outside our conventions.  A “foreboding warning letter” won’t scare them, especially from someone who couldn’t make Progressive Media USA survive in a progressive-friendly cycle.

In fact, such fascistic tactics will have the reverse effect.  Conservative activists have mostly stayed on the sidelines in this election, frustrated by the nomination of John McCain and a Congress that won’t stop spending money.  Threats from the Left will convince them that they need to get into the fight just to make sure that the Left’s candidate for President loses the election.

So send out those “warning letters”, please, and remind them all of what the Left will do when it takes full control of the government.  Keep issuing extortionist threats to people who engage in political life, and keep revealing your true nature.  Motivate conservatives to get back into action.

Update: See-Dubya and Michelle have more.

Michelle Malkin  •  August 8, 2008 01:23 PM

Ironies and hypocrisies abound. Let us count the ways.

You’ve got the nutroots brigade digging up the addresses of GOP donors to chill their political free speech while these same left-wing operatives and their followers label it “stalking” to publish public e-mail contact information for anti-war shills, or to Google Democrat donors, or to vet Democrat health care sob stories by actually reporting on their financial status.

When we do it, it’s intimidation. When they do, it’s “accountability.”

Dan Riehl makes a related point about a liberal blogger who dug into the background of a McCain donor.

When we do it, it’s bullying. When they do it, it’s journalism.

Can you imagine if a conservative group took it upon itself to send a “WARNING” letter to potential Democrat donors worded exactly like the MoveOn missive?

Voter intimidation!

Speech suppression!

Politics of fear!

Climate of crushing dissent!

BushNazi tactics!

What do PFAW, the NAACP, the ACLU, and the rest of the purported champions of political free speech and intimidation-free elections have to say about the anti-GOP donor warning letters? How about you, Barry O, self-appointed crusader against the politics of fear?

Update: Accountable America’s website is here, describing itself as “a non-partisan, non-profit corporation.” Now, Google “Accountable America.” As of this moment, you’ll see it described in the tagline as “dedicated to electing Democrats to the state legislature across America.”

“Supply crunch” to drive oil prices to record highs in next decade

Maybe someone can send a copy of the latest Chatham House report to members of Congress for their summer reading — at least those who bugged out of Washington DC without voting on opening American oil resources for drilling.  According to the latest study from the British think tank, only a major global recession will keep oil from hitting $200 per barrel in the next 5-10 years.  The reason?  A lack of will to drill:

A “supply crunch” will affect the world market within the next five to 10 years, the Chatham House report said.

While there is plenty of oil in the ground, companies and governments were failing to invest enough to ensure production, it added.

Only a collapse in demand can stave off the looming crisis, report author Professor Paul Stevens said.

“In reality, the only possibility of avoiding such a crunch appears to be if a major recession reduces demand - and even then such an outcome may only postpone the problem,” he said in The Coming Oil Supply Crunch.

The lack of production, and not a lack of raw materials, is to blame for the supply crunch.  OPEC has not expanded its production capabilities despite promises to do so by 2005.  Meanwhile, governments have begun imposing protectionist policies on extraction, forbidding or at least discouraging international oil companies from drilling in favor of less-efficient nationalized oil concerns.
Part of the problem stems from a lack of investment by oil companies in long-term extraction.  Too much of their profits go back to shareholders in the form of dividends or cash to accounts.  In the US, however, the government blocks investment in oil-rich targets, such as the OCS and the shale formations.   They also have difficulties in investing in refining capacity, which would have to expand with any serious increase in domestic production of crude.
What does the report recommend? Emphases mine:

To avoid a crunch, energy policy needs to reduce the demand growth of liquid fuels, to increase the supply of conventional liquids or to increase the supply of unconventional liquids. Ideally it should be some combination of all three. However, when discussing policy it is important to remember the long lead times between applying any policy instrument and any significant supply or demand responses. Only extreme policy measures could achieve a speedy response and these are usually politically unpopular. It would therefore require some form of crisis to allow such policy measures to be introduced – an issue developed below.

To reduce liquid fuel demand requires either greater efficiency or fuel-switching. In reality, both would probably take too long to be effective in the time frame suggested by this study. Only a major recession in the short term could reduce demand growth and even then the probability is that this would merely delay the supply crunch.

Increasing supplies of conventional liquids requires persuading IOCS and NOCs to invest more in expanding crude producing capacity, and producing it. IOCs can be encouraged to increase investment by improved fiscal terms and perhaps by governments helping to open up acreage. In the US this would involve removing current restrictions on drilling offshore and in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge.

In other words, this is not Peak Oil or evil speculators. It is a supply crisis, brought on not by natural shortage but artificial, government-imposed shortage. The US government is especially culpable, being the only industrialized nation that blocks oil drilling on large proven reserves — and we do this while demanding increased production from Saudi Arabia and complain when they don’t comply.

George McGovern: Stop Card Check

Read Full Article

Read Full Article

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gave the final word on Medellin's appeal. Writing the 6-3 majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, whose confirmation Sen. Obama voted against, said that a Texas court, or any American court, is not under any obligation to obey and be subservient to any foreign court.

"(N)ot all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in the United State courts," Roberts wrote. He noted that giving "the judgments of an international tribunal a higher status than that enjoyed by many of our most fundamental constitutional protections" was never a consideration of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution.

In a speech in South Africa recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that if judges can consult law review articles and such in the U.S., "why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court or the European Court of Human Rights?"

Justice Stephen Breyer, another citizen of the world, recently said: "We see all the time . . . how the world really — it's trite but it's true — is growing together. The challenge (will be) whether our Constitution . . . fits into the governing documents of other nations."

Whether our Constitution fits?

Today Obama said he wanted the U.S. to stop using oil from the Middle East and Venezuela in ten years.

I'll stand with Senator Obama on this proposal if he starts by denouncing Joseph P. Kennedy II for doing propaganda ads for Hugo Chavez and saying that the objections to him come from hypocritical "conservative interests."

(It should be easy. Think of him as one of those $400,000-a-year oil barons.)