Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Thanks for liking this blog...

If you like my blog enough to share it on FB with the "like" button in the sidebar then feel free to introduce yourself. It's cool to know that there are at least 17 people who are willing to share this blog on their profiles. It's really flattering indeed, hopefully, this blog really is worth your time and those who you share it with!

Regrowing your own teeth...

[VIDEO]I think this is a good idea. You lose your teeth, have them regenerated in a lab. As stated on Instapundit when it was linked on there "faster please". Yes, PLEASE!

Monday, January 30, 2012

Dr. Franklin to step down as President of Morehouse College...

A press release I found via Yahoo! Finance today:
After an accomplished five-year term as president of Morehouse College, Robert M. Franklin '75 has decided to step down at the end of his term at the close of the 2012 academic year on June 30.

Following his departure as president, Franklin plans to spend his sabbatical as a Scholar in Residence at Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Institute and plans to return to Morehouse in the role of Distinguished Professor of Social Ethics.

In recognition of Franklin's exemplary service to the College, the Board of Trustees has voted to recognize him with the College's highest and most prestigious rank: President Emeritus and Distinguished Professor.

"Dr. Franklin has served an integral role leading the renaissance of Morehouse, and his dedication is greatly appreciated," said Robert Davidson, chairman of the Morehouse College Board of Trustees. "In addition to his years of service, Robert has led by example, dedicating a substantial portion of his time to community service, which is one of the core values that Morehouse seeks to instill in each and every one of its students. We will miss him as the Board endeavors to find a successor who will help to usher the college into a new era."
I liked Dr. Franklin. He seemed to have a solid vision as to where he was going to take Morehouse College. It seems he may have accomplished some of them and hopefully Morehouse will appoint someone who will also have a solid vision for the college. Perhaps the 5 wells will continue in someway in the future.

Dr. Franklin took over as President of Morehouse from Dr. Walter Massey by the summer of 2007. He was officially inaugurated into office in February 2008. This was his address but there are also links below the embed to other aspects of his inaguration as the Morehouse College President.

[VIDEO: Inaugural Anthem, Investiture, Inaugural Address]

Friday, January 27, 2012


[VIDEO] This video is hilarious. About a man with an upbeat personality working a job that really doesn't require such a personality. Then he finds a girl he can't turn around and gets himself depressed but the ending is priceless as he regains his smile. A love story told in only 16 minutes. Enjoy!

Why I'm a Republican in my head but a Democrat in my heart: A Love Story

Head over to ChicagoNow where a posting explains how she may agree with Republicans on some issues but remains in fact a Democrat:
Why stay in a party that promotes flawed economic policies and makes renewing my driver's license so painful?

I stay because the Republican Party gives me no choice.

In fact, they make it too easy to stay.

Time and time again, election after election, they deem themselves more concerned with protecting arcane notions of what it means to be "American" rather than accept the fact that the face of our country is no longer predominately white and male.

I stay because I don't think that government should have a say in who I, or anyone else, marries and what I do with my uterus.

I stay because I don't agree with allowing people to sneak across the border to clean our homes but force them to go back when they want to attend our schools.

Most of all, even with all its flaws, I stay for a reason that our President expressed on Tuesday night during the State of the Union address:

"I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed, that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more."

We cannot negate the impact that institutionalized racism and bigotry has had on many in America. For that reason, I believe that it is all of our duty to continue to lift up others who cannot lift themselves out of their situations. And though we may be far from the perfect solution, we owe it to the dream of what our country can be to keep trying, to keep helping, and to keep believing that we can be better.
A lot of things here I can get with. What I wish could be explained was what's with the thing about who one marries or what who has say in who's uterus? Are those slaps against gay marriage and abortion?

If you want to know my thoughts, I'm very much pro-life. I think that's a long way from telling a woman what to do with her uterus, my thing would be to encourage a woman to seek other options such as birth control. And surely there are many who even scoff at that!

As for marriage, while I don't agree with gay marriage my thing is to get government out of marriage. Government shouldn't tell a church that they must marry homosexuals. In that case, OK perhaps government shouldn't dictate who can or can't get married. Some will insist there must be equal protection on the other hand I would say marriage should be a primarily religious matter than a civil governmental matter.

Also I can understand where she's coming from. There are ideas I can agree with on the Republican side, however, it's difficult for me to believe there is a home for me in the GOP. At the same time I feel the same way about the Democrats.

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Colorblind Racism: The New Norm

This piece was from the Washington Post site The Root which more or less caters to a more Black readership. They talk about the comments made at the debates that took place before the South Carolina primary this past weekend.
Colorblind racism is the new normal in American conservative political thought. Well after the election of the nation's first African-American president, in 2012 Republican candidates are using egregious signals and dog whistles to incite racial divisiveness as an effective tool for political gain. But when confronted about the nature of their offensive rhetoric, the answer is either an innocuous denial or dismissive retort.

It is curious that people bold enough to make outlandish racial claims never admit guilt or receive a proverbial trial and conviction by the greater populace. Paul Rosenberg, a political contributor to Al-Jazeera, recently explained that this curious phenomenon of "racism without racists" has become de facto in today's political discourse and is best described as "colorblind racism."

First explored in the book Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a professor of sociology at Duke University, the concept explains much of the Republican strategy to defeat Barack Obama, using race as a wedge issue. Bonilla-Silva defined colorblind racism as a racial ideology that expresses itself in seemingly nonracial terms. As such, it is most practiced by people who never see themselves outside their own myopic worldview.

Last week's Fox News debate prior to the South Carolina Republican primary was an excellent example of the hubris inherent in today's racially charged, conservative environment.

All the more offensive was the fact that this debate took place on the national holiday celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. As Michael Keegan explained in the Huffington Post, "What could have been an opportunity for the candidates to express their support for the myriad advances of the civil rights movement and to address the real challenges that remain, instead turned into a mess of racially charged attacks on African Americans, immigrants and the poor."
Basically they take issue with amongst other ideas from those debates, Newt Gingrich's comments that suggest that he would have public school students take jobs at their local school. Who knows if the author is offended by the idea that such students should take on janitorial jobs although Gingrich himself doesn't limit it to only custodial positions.

To which I say, Gingrich is right our young people should know the value of work. They should also know the value of earning money and doing what it takes to get out of the low income bracket. Who would be opposed to teach our young people job skills especially of getting to work on time, dressing appropriately, or even conducting themselves at work?

So if you continue to read this three page article (WHEW) you will see that the author accuses Republicans of "race baiting". Have anyone seen any instances of race baiting during this campaign amongst Republicans? Tell me where and when!

Brewer's exchange with the President...

[VIDEO] A lot of people are taking issue with this exchange. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer shouldn't have placed her finger in the President's face, that I will agree on. On the other hand I understand that there are two sides to every story. Besides amongst players in our politcal & governmental systems there will be disagreements as there are between Republican Brewer and the Democrat President.

According to the Washington Post this is what it was about:
Obama descended the stairs of Air Force One and was greeted by Brewer, who was waiting for him along with other politicians in a traditional receiving line. Brewer offered Obama a letter, which she later said was an invitation to sit down with her to discuss Arizona’s economic “comeback” and to join her for a tour of the U.S.-Mexican border.

The president told Brewer he would be happy to meet with her, a White House aide said, but also informed the governor that he thought she had been inaccurate in describing their earlier session in the Oval Office.

Brewer’s book, “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure the Border,’’ details her conservative approach to dealing with the state’s illegal immigration challenges. A review published in the Arizona Republic said that Brewer casts Obama as “condescending” and skewers him repeatedly. Although she originally described their Oval Office meeting as cordial, the newspaper said, “in the book she calls the president ‘patronizing’ and said ‘he lectured me.’ ”

“He didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially” in the book, Brewer told reporters Wednesday. “I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt.”

In an excerpt available on Amazon, Brewer defends Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 immigration law that she signed into law in 2010, but whose toughest provisions were overturned by a federal judge.

Brewer writes that Obama “has repeatedly made fun of those of us who want to see the law enforced, saying we want a ‘moat’ with ‘alligators’ in it around our country. The reason he has resorted to these failed attempts at humor, I think, is that he supports a policy that is fundamentally undemocratic, and he knows it.”

She and Obama appeared to be talking over each other on the tarmac, as other Arizona officials looked on. The exchange ended when Obama abruptly walked away, as Brewer appeared to still be speaking.
Now that you guys know the other side of the story other than perhaps what was seen on video, who would you point the finger at? Governor Brewer, President Obama, or both? I would point my finger at both.

Gov. Brewer shouldn't have pointed a finger at Obama, literally sure. Then again if it's true that Obama just walked off while the Governor was speaking, I'm not so sure that makes the President looks any better himself. Gov. Brewer is a citizen and he should listen to what she has to say and with the present discussion the book should've have even come up, especially if he never read it.

BTW, I wanted to find some better video of this exchange but I have been unable to find any. The finger is portrayed in a photograph. And there's no way for me to see if she was still talking when he walked off on her. Check out the vile comments on the YouTube page as well, MAN!

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Illinois abortions at record low - Chicago Sun-Times

Abortions reported in Illinois reached a 37-year low in 2010, a drop that abortion opponents attributed to more women shying away from the procedure while abortion-rights supporters pointed to an uptick in use of contraceptives.

In 2010, there were 41,859 abortions in Illinois, according to recently published data from the state Department of Public Health .

That’s the lowest total since 1973, when Illinois recorded 32,760 abortions. That’s the year the procedure was legalized in the United States in the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Carole Brite, president of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said her organization was pleased to learn about the decrease but it was “hard to know for sure” what caused it. She said between 2009 and 2010, her organization doubled its distribution of contraceptives such as intrauterine devices and Implanon — a small rod placed under the skin that blocks pregnancy.

“I think more and more providers have become aware and knowledgeable of these methods and are recommending them to their patients,” Brite said.
I posted that quote from the President of Planned Parenthood for a reason. I'm surprised to see she's pleased about the decrease in a abortions.

TO be sure I'm pleased. The emphasis should be more on prevention of unwanted pregnancies than on abortions. Who knows why there is a decrease in Abortions in my state.

It makes me wonder why this little statistic is included in an analysis of unemployment rates not only in Illinois but with neighboring states as seen on Capitol Fax today!

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Washington Post: Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina primary

I wasn't able to follow the South Carolina primary last night, but was caught off guard seeing that the former US Speaker of the House was able to win that primary. Officially Romney is 2 to 1 against Gingrich although I read a report that the Iowa caucuses had declared former US Senator Rick Santorum the winner. But for now that doesn't count in my eyes especially since there's no way to verify all the results!
Former House speaker Newt Gingrich scored an easy victory Saturday in the South Carolina primary, blowing a hole in Mitt Romney’s aura of inevitability.

The 12-point win represented a swift and extraordinary turnaround in Gingrich’s fortunes — thanks largely to strong performances in two debates. In those forums, he issued a stirring appeal to the state’s strident conservatism, convinced its voters he would be a formidable opponent against President Obama and threw Romney off his stride.

“We don’t have the kind of money that at least one of the candidates has,” Gingrich said in his victory speech in Columbia, referring to Romney. “But we do have ideas, and we do have people and we proved here in South Carolina that people power with the right ideas beats big money.”

He also peppered his speech with dismissive references to “elites” in the media and in Washington and New York — a sign that he intends to continue the truculently populist tone that resonated with voters in South Carolina.

After disappointing distant finishes in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Gingrich had limped into South Carolina more than 10 points down in most polls. So battered was his candidacy that Gingrich himself had conceded that his campaign might be over if he failed to turn in a strong performance.
OK the first three big primaries for the GOP are now out of the way, what's next?

Friday, January 20, 2012

Stuff Spelmanites say...

[VIDEO] For those of you who've attended an HBCU (such as Spelman College) you may very well enjoy this and know what they are referring to. For those of you who haven't had this experience it's still good for a laugh. I've decided it's worth sharing to anyone who reads this blog. Enjoy!

Santorum declares victory after revised Iowa caucus total

Santorum declares victory after revised Iowa caucus total

This has got to be a case of WTF???? I even tweeted as such earlier on Thursday!
The Republican Party of Iowa announced Thursday that Rick Santorum finished ahead of Mitt Romney in its Jan. 3 caucuses, meaning the contest resulted in a virtual tie between the two candidates.

After more than two weeks of certifying the results, the former Pennsylvania senator pulled ahead of Romney by 34 votes despite Romney being declared the winner on Jan. 3 by an 8 vote margin.

The final official numbers stand at Santorum with 29,839 and Romney with 29,805, but the results from eight of the 1774 precincts could not be located and certified, leaving lingering questions as to who is the actual winner of the Iowa Caucus.

NBC News will not declare a winner in the Iowa Caucus. With the missing precincts, it is impossible to know the final results.
So who knows who actually won this year's caucus. And what this actually means is that well Romney isn't on a HOT winning streak?

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Rick Perry is out of the running...

He had a real tough go of this race and now it looks like he's out. Texas Gov. Rick Perry drops out:
Rick Perry announced today that he is dropping out of the Republican presidential bid after continually poor rankings and debate performances.

‘There is no viable path forward for me in this 2012 campaign therefore today I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich,’ he said at an 11am press conference in North Charleston, South Carolina.

While the news does come a as a surprise as the South Carolina primary is only three days away, it is not a complete shock as his support has been lagging, even reaching its' lowest point in recent weeks.
Well we won't have another Texan in the White House this time around!

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

End Piracy, Not Liberty

I don't know the breath of all the websites are protesting legislation through Congress known as PIPA and SOPA.

All the same Google and Wikipedia are both advocating that we get in touch with our representatives or sign a petition to keep the internet free! The above image is from Google observing the blackout!

Today even the Capitol Fax talked about this federal legislation!

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Feds should bailout states, cities, and counties...

[VIDEO] Says Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. Below is the description of the video via rebelpundit:
Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL) addresses Occupy the Dream at The People's Church in Chicago. 1/15/2012. Jackson proposes trillions of new spending, the federal government hiring 15 million people directly at $40,000 for infrastructure. Jackson remarks "for a mere $900 billion" we can get our country working again.
Hat-tip Gateway Pundit!

Monday, January 16, 2012

Vodkapundit: Required viewing on MLK Day...

[VIDEO] Vodkapundit pays homage to MLK with this video of about 17 Minutes of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I have a dream speech" at the August 28, 1963 March on Washington. It's hard to believe that next year it will be only 50 years ago. Probably still fresh in the memory of those who were there however. Even now we have a long way to go to live up to that vision.

Red Tails...

[VIDEO] In the mid-1990s, HBO aired a TV movie named The Tuskegee Airmen. Of course the movie starred Cuba Gooding who is also starring in the coming film also about the "Tuskegee Airmen" entitled Red Tails.

The Tuskegee Airmen is the popular name of a group of WW2 US Army Air Force (precedes the US Air Force) pilots that are well known for their exploits escorting American bombers in the skies of Europe. It started with the 99th Pursuit Squadron and the pilots of that squadron began their training at Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University). That unit actually still exist in the US Air Force as the 99th Flying Training Squadron.

Eventually the Tuskegee Airmen would be assigned to the 332d Fighter Group. As members of this Army Air Force unit, the tail of the planes would be painted crimson, and thus they acquired another nickname alluded to in the coming coming new film "red tails" or "red-tailed angels".

I read a story recently about how this film got to be made. It was produced by George Lucas who largely put up his own funds because Hollywood was unwilling to produce this project. I'm sure Hollywood was skittish about a project advertised as an action-flick with a mostly Black cast because they were unsure about whether or not money could be made. Even he tried to look at the big picture:
But still, Lucas claims he foot the bill himself for the budget, because that’s how important getting the film out there was to him. Lucas also pointed out that he wanted to make the film for teenage boys (young, black teenage boys in particular), to show them real heroes and real role models (outside of the Jay-Zs and Michael Jordans as he said). However, while talking to the folks over at USA Today, he said the pressure of having it do well at the box office has him worried about what impact Red Tail‘s success could have on the success of future films with all black casts.

“I realize that by accident I’ve now put the black film community at risk,” Lucas said. “I’m saying, if this doesn’t work, there’s a good chance you’ll stay where you are for quite a while. It’ll be harder for you guys to break out of that (lower-budget) mold. But if I can break through with this movie, then hopefully there will be someone else out there saying let’s make a prequel and sequel, and soon you have more Tyler Perrys out there.”
It wasn't just about the money but to help advance Black filmmakers. Perhaps even change the range of films they will be able to make. It also about giving the young boys the real heros and the real role models. Very laudable goals because the men the boys look up to will need some form of diversity. Who says you must only look up to entertainers and be entertainers?

You know I saw somewhere, some attribute his interest in doing this to the fact that he's dating a Black woman. This may be a true reason although certainly it's good thing what he seeks to do in this endeavor. It's still very important to be able to bring to the public the story of WW2's Tuskegee Airmen!

BTW George Lucas if you don't know owns Lucasfilm. His company has produced both the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises. They've made lots of money over the years so don't assume Red Tails will be a slouch on the silver screen!

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Preckwinkle Blasted for Ignoring ICE Laws

I'm sure American Rattlesnake are exploring this kind of issue that surely occurs around the nation all the time. This story from our local NBC affiliate:
The Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement has written Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle, blasting the County’s decision to ignore immigration detainers at Cook County Jail, warning her that the County is likely in violation of federal law.

ICE Director John Morton suggested the County’s decision to release accused criminals back into the community without informing immigration, was a danger to the community.

"The ordinance disrupts the federal government’s efforts to remove deportable criminal offenders from the country, and instead allows for their release back into the community," Morton wrote. "The release of so many of these individuals to the streets of Cook County is deeply troubling, and directly undermines public safety."
The question I have is at least for those who are detained for serious felonies at least why would we just release them into the community?

Read the whole thing!

PJ Tatter: ‘Pick Romney’s VP Now’ Poll Contest

If it looks like it could be Romney - even though it's very early in the primary process so far - there is one place that's already having fun looking at who could be the GOP VP nominee. Let's remember though that ultimately we're voting for President and whoever may be the running mate it's still largely Romney's show. If most Republicans aren't that thrilled with Romney why would anyone thing this might help him get over the top?

Besides, while McCain made a "maverick" move in 2008 to nominate a relative unknown then Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin it may have backfired on him as the campaign continued. She's now very well known herself these days, but she's unwilling to pull a trigger on a national run. All the same hopefully Romney will choose someone who can not only compliment his campaign but certainly someone who is a known quantity that can handle the national exposure.

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Illinois already have civil unions...

But it appears that there are those who still think there should be gay marriage in this state. Hmmm, I need to get a handle on this idea of "marriage equality". Not entirely sure what this means.

All the same, I just have one question. Why gay marriage if civil unions (for homosexual couples) essentially have the same rights & privileges as marriage? Is it all about the word marriage?

If you want to know my position, I'm OK with civil unions. But this strikes me as an odd push.

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Needless to say Romney has won the New Hampshire primary...

From Yahoo's, The Ticket:
Mitt Romney won the New Hampshire primary Tuesday, the second state in a row he has carried in his campaign for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Romney is the first Republican, not including incumbent presidents, to win both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary since Iowa Republicans began holding their first-in-the-nation caucuses in 1976.

Ron Paul came in second; Jon Huntsman in third.

It was a start-to-finish victory for Romney in New Hampshire, who led in the polls here throughout the 2012 campaign. Romney owns a summer home in the state, which borders his home state of Massachusetts, where he served as governor from 2003 to 2007.
I wanted to find a county by county map so here's one from CNN and here's one from the Chicago Tribune. It appears out of the 10 counties in NH all but one went for former Gov. Romney. One lone county in the most northern portion of the "Granite State" went to TX Congressman Ron Paul.

I think I shall see what the Free Staters media outlets say about the GOP primaries. Here I come FreeKeene.com and The Ridley Report!

‘Doomsday Clock’ moved one minute closer to ‘midnight’ - Chicago Sun-Times

The idea of this is scary in the worst way. It's even scarier that there are people who ponder this.
“It is five minutes to midnight,” the scientists said Tuesday. “Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed.”

“There are still 20,000 nuclear weapons in the world — enough to kill all of humanity many times over,” Robert Socolow of Princeton University said at a news conference in Washington D.C..

The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project. The scientists created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 using the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero), to convey threats to humanity and the Earth.

The bulletin has grown into an organization focused more generally on manmade threats to human civilization.

The Doomsday Clock had most recently been moved back from five to six minutes to midnight in 2010, in a response to the worldwide reduction of nuclear weapons and attempts to limit climate change.
According to this article back in 1953 we were only 2 minutes to midnight because the US had successfully tested a hydrogen bomb but in 1991 after the fall of the Soviet Union it was as far away at 17 minutes to midnight. You can check this history of this at this Wiki page. Scary stuff!

Taking the pulse of GOP voters in Illinois

[AUDIO] A segment of this morning's Eight Forty-Eight program on Chicago Public Radio where there is a discussion with political commentator Lenny McCallister, former IL Republican Gov. Jim Thompson and Republican pundit David Dring. If you have questions about what Illinois Republicans are going for in the current Presidential race then this is a must hear!

Also note the New Hampshire primaries are today!

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Concealed-Carry Myths

Been wanting to do a gun post and here's a good one. And a pertinent quote:
In the United States today, there is little doubt concealed carry is one of the hottest topics, at least for gun owners. Sales figures for compact, concealable handguns bear out this argument. Furthermore, at last count, there was a grand total of one state that had absolutely no provision to allow their citizens to carry a concealed handgun. In the other states, the majority have shall-issue laws on the books.
And if you read this blog, we already know what that one state is. Thank you Gov. Pat Quinn!

Anyway, there are people like my mother who can't reconcile the right to bear arms without thinking all the bad that could happen. Especially someone who really shouldn't be anywhere near a gun and they get their hands on one. They shoot someone they felt were dangerous but were completely innocent.

Not that this piece answers that point. Of course this piece let's you know what you can do to use your privilege to conceal-carry with great responsibility. Let's not forget guns are very dangerous tools and is certainly for only the level-headed.

Oh and here's to the state of Illinois to one day join the rest of the United States in allowing for conceal carry without the irrational fear of those who absolutely believe in gun control!

Via Instapundit!

Friday, January 06, 2012

FreeKeene: Can libertarians be liberals?

The answer according to this posting is certainly yes, but I would encourage you to take a read before you answer. I've heard of "left-leaning libertarian", but that's odd to me because in my opinion libertarian is on the right-wing spectrum of philosophy. Although to be sure there are those who are more free-market anarchists which is another strange one to me.

I suppose there is a lot for me to learn about libertarianism as it's a philosophy that interest me. Although it's safe to say that my political philosophy is a long way from being libertarian but some of the ideas from that school of though is somewhat appealing. There should be a discussion of them no matter where you lean on the issues.

Wednesday, January 04, 2012

Heritage: News Year's Resolutions for Conservatives...

Bill Barr provides a link to the Heritage Foundation's "New Year's Resolutions for Conservatives". I wanted to focus on one of these resolutions. Republicans or conservatives seemed to have struggled on this point:
Speak of Federalism, not “States’ Rights”

States don’t have rights. People do.

States have powers. Nowhere in the Constitution are states said to possess rights. Congress has certain powers, clearly enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the conservative-favorite Tenth Amendment makes clear that all the other powers are reserved to the states.

Not only is it incorrect to speak of states’ rights, but the expression has more baggage than Samsonite and Louis Vuitton combined. In case you didn’t know, “states’ rights” was the rallying cry of segregationists. Since no right-thinking conservative will keep company with such people, let’s just drop the term states’ rights once and for all.

If you’re concerned about federal encroachments on state sovereignty or the erosion of federalism–as you should be–then speak of federal encroachments on state sovereignty or the erosion of federalism. Or of the need to restore limited constitutional government, reinvigorate local self-government, decentralize power or check the growth of out-of-control government. With so many great formulations to choose from, why weaken the case for liberty by relying on “states’” rights?
If states have rights we're in even bigger trouble than thought. You know who else invoked states' rights? People who supported segregation and well now that's one reason why no one really wants to take state's rights now.

And you know another answer to the difference between states' rights and federalism is answered in the New Year's Resolution #2. Mainly that one is about this idea that a state can nullify federal laws they don't agree with or they deem unconstitutional. You must either challenge the law in question judicially or get into touch with your Congressional representatives.

The state's have a role to play in the federal system. Indeed in effect the states are sovereign in some respect to the federal government. That is in the course of banding together in a union, the individual states have the ability of running their own affairs as they see fit within the context of a constitutional republic. While I accept the authority of the Federal Government and it's laws, nothing should force the states to accede to the will of the Feds.

BTW, I still have a pocket constitution from The Heritage Foundation! I wish I can tell the person who provided that to me, thank you. Don't recall if I ever did.

2012 Iowa Caucus items

Let's start with a map of all the counties of Iowa. This map was provided by radio station WHO - which according to Marathon Pundit this station employed future US President Ronald Reagan - which is based out of Des Moines, IA.

Basically in following the results for the most part I followed the results according to Politico and tweeted them as often as I could. The speeches were interesting, but to be sure it still left a lot to be desired. There was still no clear frontrunner. Let's not forget that the Primary season has just started although the Iowa Caucuses isn't considered a conventional primary.

According to Politico as I type this at 1:51 AM Chicago time Mitt Romney was up by eight votes but has only 25% of the vote along with his closest competitor former US Senator Rick Santorum. Ron Paul was in third place with only 21.5% of the vote.

Also American Rattlesnake - the immigration website - provides their thoughts on the Iowa caucus results.

BTW, why is there a Buddy Roemer in this caucus race. I can understand why Cain is even in the running, but what about Roemer. If he's in the running and he's barely even in this race then why not former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. Surely he could've gotten less than 1% of the vote in Iowa whether or not those two gentlemen were in the race!

Now when is New Hampshire, the next big early primary?

Chicago Argus on banning cell phone usage for drivers...

I can't say I disagree with Gregory Tejada of Chicago Argus as he makes an argument in favor of a possible state law that bans cell phone usage in automobiles.
In fact, to me, the idea of not using a cellphone while in the car makes all the sense in the world – particularly since I have noticed the number of times that drivers who were busy yakking away on their hand-held communications devices weren’t paying attention and would have hit me had I not managed to engage in a sudden maneuver.

AS FAR AS I’m concerned, I actually have one of those devices in my own car that lets me talk on my cellular telephone without holding it in my hands (it was a birthday gift from my brother a couple of years ago).

Yet I rarely use it, preferring to ignore most calls to me while driving (I call them back once I get to where I’m going).

On those rare occasions when it is someone whom I do need to talk to, right there and then, I pull over to the side of the road and stop (which led to one recent story I reported, in part, for an area newspaper from the side of Interstate 80 just outside of Joliet), then talk.

In short, I will have no problem complying with the idea that using a cellular phone in the car is absurd.
This is how Tejada responds to those who may not like the idea of Government banning the use of cellphones in automobiles:
There are going to be a lot of people who are going to think that this is some sort of serious intrusion on their personal lives by telling them where their cellular telephones can (and cannot) be used.

Even though personally, I consider the cellular telephone itself to be the serious intrusion on my own personal life. As though some people think they have the right to speak to me whenever it is to their convenience.
Believe it or not some of this I can relate to. Besides my cellphone usage doesn't revolve around talking as a lot of people use their cell phones. In fact it irritates me to see so many people on their phones and airing out their personal business and forcing everyone to listen when they might prefer some peace and quiet. A lot of people seem to want to lose themselves in the phone and forget that there are actually people around them.

That being said, do I believe cell phone usage by drives be banned? My answer is no. It's more than reasonable to expect people to use some type of hands free device to receive and or make calls, but certainly to receive. In fact that's required by Chicago city ordinance, you must have a hands free device if you must talk on your phone in your vehicle.

Of course in spite of this a lot of people choose to take that chance anyway. As a matter of fact I own a Bluetooth device, but it's rarely used. My phone doesn't blow up like I'm sure many people do. The primary usage of my phone has been as a small camera, checking e-mails, send tweets, and even to Facebook. That's it! And I would use a handsfree device to respond to phone calls as I drive around in my vehicle.

I understand a lot of these laws were written with the idea of safety. Perhaps it's not safe to literally have a phone up to your ear as I've seen so many people elect to do while behind the wheel of their vehicles. At the same time my hope is that people without the need of another law will make the more sensible choice to not make a phone call behind the wheel of their vehicle as it appears Tejada will do.

Besides, I sometimes will err in the school of you can't legislate stupidity. That is if you already know that it's not a very bright idea to physically pick-up your cell phone while behind the wheel then why are you choosing to do so? Especially if there are devices you can use that will enable you to talk to that other person but with out having to literally put the phone up to your ear.

Monday, January 02, 2012

For some reason I like this...

[VIDEO] I'm really admiring Jimmie "Big Daddy" DeRamus of a pawn shop out of Alexandria, Louisiana. This promo for his new History program Cajun Pawn Stars seems very bombastic and boastful. Especially over the "anything goes" aspects of his business.

Tonight I just saw an old episode of Insomnia. Remember that show, Dave Atell would go around various cities late at night and that would take up a whole episode. Anyway he spoke to the original "Pawn Star" Rick Harrison [VIDEO] back then when Rick appeared to have hair and it seems even with the Harrison family of Las Vegas anything goes.

If you're not up to buying anything in that business then there's a good chance you won't make money. Of course you have to do that without arousing the suspicion of the authorities.

To be sure, it feels like the History channel is going the direction that's getting them viewers. There was a time I couldn't get away from episodes of Modern Marvels or another WW2 documentary on that network. Now I can't get away from people who deal in antiques, pawn shops, pickers, mounters, or even truck drivers. It almost makes me wonder if History isn't going in the right direction and it's less about history than to show people making money off of it.

Either way I would like to see the southern version of Pawn Stars hit the small screen in the near future!

Sunday, January 01, 2012

Why are most Jewish voters Democrats?

[VIDEO] US Representative Eric Cantor (R-VA) - who just so happens to be the House Majority Whip - was interviewed on CBS' 60 Minutes this evening. In this roughly two and a half minute video discusses why he believes Jewish voters appear to favor Democrats instead of Republicans. He attributes this to the fact that over the years the GOP hasn't been very welcoming to to immigrants and then the conversation with Leslie Stahl goes from there.

You can watch the full interview here at this link [VIDEO]

Hmmm it makes me wonder if the Republicans have always been the party of the rural areas. I may have to do more research, but it seems the immigrants have often flocked to the urban areas especially in the latter part of the 19th and the start of the 20th century. For the most part America's urban areas have been dominated by the Democratic party.

Happy New Year!!!!