The thing about Liberals is that they love preaching about just how everyone should live their lives--and are willing to make the government force you to do or not do what they think is best for you. But as this video shows, they usually don't actually really believe what the preach. See, if Gore truly really believed what he says about global warming, he would act accordingly.



"Americans for Prosperity rallied taxpayers outside Al Gore's big global warming speech in Washington, and found that some Gore followers didn't exactly practice what he preached."

During times of war and when our enemies constantly threaten our national security, America needs consistent leadership in the area of national security. Watch this video...not consistent, not coherent, and not America's best interest.

Today I read for the first time Cafe Hayek authored by Don Boudreaux and Russ Roberts. In one post in particular, Boudreaux writes about a letter he submitted to the Aurora (Illinois) Beacon News about Barack Obama's "emergency rebate" proposal to deal with rising gasoline prices. Click on over to Cafe Hayek and read Boudreaux's post and his letter explaining why Obama's plan displays a serious lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

This plan - which increases the demand for gasoline and reduces its supply - makes as much sense as trying to put out a fire by dowsing it with jet fuel.

This is Economics 101 -- the kind of stuff they teach during the first year of business school...or should be teaching. I'm not really sure what sort of economics Harvard is teaching these days.

My graduate school Economics professor, Dr. Paul T. Prentice, links to an interesting Stossel video debunking the scarcity of oil myth.

Author and ABC News Correspondent John Stossel -- who was here in Colorado Springs not long ago to give the keynote speech for Limited Government Week -- has a website I would highly recommend. On it you'll find a video in which he debunks the scarcity of oil myth. Check it out here: View the "Scarcity of Oil" video.

We can argue all we want about what is wrong with McCain and how is not a true "conservative," but I want to make it clear once again -- the alternative -- an Obama administration -- would cost more than I am willing to sacrifice.

Let's look at his economic policies. The decline to our economy, and the resulting poverty, would affect millions in the US and around the world.

From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback.

Michael Boskin aptly concludes with the truth about what sort of change exactly is Barack Obama proposing.

History teaches us that high taxes and protectionism are not conducive to a thriving economy, the extreme case being the higher taxes and tariffs that deepened the Great Depression. While such a policy mix would be a real change, as philosophers remind us, change is not always progress.

I'm sitting at my local auto service center waiting for my car to get its routine maintance and have watched 3 ads in the last 2 hours -- the campaigning is getting hot and heavy out here in real America.

I was reading my copy of Townhall Magazine last night and read Michelle Malkin's comments on McCain -- she is basicly encouraging involvement and support for conservative organizations, but is on the record that she will not be voting for McCain. Its really a tempting thought considering McCain was not my first choice, but I think every voter has to consider a very pragmatic question: What are the long-term consequences for America if Obama wins?

On the short term, I can agree with Malkin that a huge loss for the GOP would serve as a "lesson learned" (hopefully...we have seen how thick-headed politicians can be) and could bring a revival of true fiscal and social conservatism and improved government accountability. But--and its a HUGE but--we know that once government "grows" it is extreemly dificult to "rein it in." What sort of massive "big-brother" government can we safely expect would be the outcome of an Obama administration? What sorts of liberties are we willing to give should Obama have the leadership role for the next 4 (and possibly 8) years? Each administration certainly can "restore" and un-do the previous administration's decisions, but there are plenty of things that can't just be undone.

From National Security and defense areas, to healthcare and sanctity of live -- an Obama administration would have real human impact to every day Americans. I'm not sure I'm willing to sacrifice real lives at the altar of political posturing (even if its political posturing that I agree with). That's not to say that Malkin is wrong on McCain -- she is right on way to many things (sad to say). I just think that its a matter of the least of two evils, and the alternative will have way to many long-term repercusions to our nation.

So, come November, I will reluctantly vote for John McCain. And with that vote is my commitment to work tirelessly to keep his administration in-check and to work towards a more limited government at both the Federal level and at the local level.

A new study being released by the Center for the Immigration Studies reports "significant decline" in illegal immigration population since last summer. One of the arguments for better enforcement of our current immigration laws was that a natural bi-product would be that it would change the risk and economic equation for many illegal immigrants who would return home (or reconsider coming in the first place). It's the concept of reducing the number of illegal immigration by natural attrition. This seems to affirm that the enforcement so far is working (though perhaps its still not enough).

As the release notes, the study "examines the extent to which stepped-up enforcement and the downturn in the economy account for this trend."

I'm a little out of the loop these days as I have not been following the news as much as I did before, so I'm wondering--is the economy "in fact" slowing, or is it a lot of normal fluctuations (and the increased cost of oil) hyped-up by the doom-and-gloom liberal media? I don't know the numbers, but I would not be surprised to hear some Democrat find some connection between the dropping illegal immigrant population and the slowing economy and lay blame on the Bush administration for its work in securing our borders and curbing illegal immigration (as little as it might be).

WASHINGTON (July 25, 2008) — A new analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of monthly data collected by the Census Bureau shows that the illegal immigrant population has declined significantly between last summer and May of this year. The study is the first to find quantitative evidence that illegal immigrants are leaving the country. It also examines the extent to which stepped-up enforcement and the downturn in the economy account for this trend.

The report, entitled 'Homeward Bound: Recent Immigration Enforcement and the Decline in the Illegal Alien Population,' is embargoed until Wednesday, July 30th at 2:30 pm. The study will be available online at www.cis.org. Advance copies are available to the media.

The Center will formally release the report at a press conference on Wednesday, July 30th at 2:30 pm in room 1309 of the Longworth House Office Building. The report’s lead author, Dr. Steven Camarota will be joined by Representatives John Barrow (D-GA), Lamar Smith (R-TX), Tom Feeney (R-FL) and Heath Shuler (D-NC) to discuss the implications of the study.

Here are some links to interesting articles I read today.

The Christian Science Monitor
Cuba under Raúl: Creeping toward capitalism?
Venezuela church-state clash grows

Los Angeles Times
Cuba's Fidel Castro is cryptic over report on Russian bombers

Via the AFP:

Russia would cross "a red line for the United States of America" if it were to base nuclear capable bombers in Cuba, a top US air force officer warned on Tuesday.

"If they did I think we should stand strong and indicate that is something that crosses a threshold, crosses a red line for the United States of America," said General Norton Schwartz, nominated to be the air force's chief of staff.

He was referring to a Russian news report that said the military is thinking of flying long-range bombers to Cuba on a regular basis.

HT: http://drudgereport.com

Thomas Sowel provides perspective where the media can't.

It was not that many years ago when there was moral outrage ringing throughout the media because lenders were reluctant to lend in certain neighborhoods and because banks did not approve mortgage loan applications from blacks as often as they approved mortgage loan applications from whites.

All this was an opening salvo in a campaign to get Congress to pass laws forcing lenders to lend to people they would not otherwise lend to and in places where they would not otherwise put their money.

The practice of not lending in some neighborhoods was demonized as "redlining" and the fact that minority applicants were approved for mortgages only 72 percent of the time, while whites were approved 89 percent, was called "overwhelming" evidence of discrimination by the Washington Post.

It's not that complicated folks. I know plenty of friends of Hispanic heritage who went in over their heads... just because the banks were willing to give them more than they could afford. Why would banks do that? Read Sowel's piece. Now it's clear that the government has done minorities a disservice by distorting the capital markets.

Just wanted to check in and say hello to any old readers who still might be hanging around here. I'm gearing up to do some coverage on the Nov election. I'll have more soon.

The idea that when the government spends money it helps the economy is a false idea. CNN has a quote from Huckabee that shows

But Huckabee said investment in infrastructure instead of tax rebates would best stimulate the nation's economy.

"Infrastructure in this country has been neglected," he said. "I don't think there's a governor in this country that wouldn't tell you that you'll create more jobs and you'll build it with American workers, American concrete and American steel. That's stimulus."

It is proof of poor understanding of economic principles for someone to say that when the government spends more money, it stimulates the economy. Additionally, Huckabee throws in a "made in america" populist statement by saying "build it with American workers," when it fact, the hand of free market forces best determines how to most efficiently use scarce resources, including labor...therefore bringing the cost down.

At best, he is an ignorant on basic economics (VERY common in DC these days...even among Republicans). At worst, he will be a big spending, big government President. I can agree that a Pastor is called to do everything to help the community--and to lead his Church flock in this.

But a President that has a "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" philosophy is a menace to free society. His theology might be right, and his moral values might be strong, but these are like weapons in the hands of a blind man if his understanding of the constitutional role of the  government is wrong.

P.S.

That's not to say that I am disagreeing that the American infrastructure may need some help... just don't tell me it would stimulate the economy.

George Will has a valuable column articulating the truth about Huckabee. I'm a Christian and a conservative, but I'm certainly not falling for the idea that Huckabee is the candidate for social conservatives...much less for fiscal conservatives.

 [Huckabee] and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrinking middle class. Well.

Ha! Shrinking middle class indeed -- I'm planning to contribute that shrinking by moving up the income ladder through hard work...I don't see anything wrong with that.

As George points out, Huckabee's message reveals a basic ignorance of economics, among other things.


Read the whole article...well worth your time. If you're going to vote for Huckabee, just make sure you know what you're voting for--don't make assumptions about his candidacy just because he's a ordained minister.

Hi everyone, Sorry I have been missing in action for so long. There has been a lot going on, starting with a recent job change and a move. I hope to keep blogging here, though it won't be with the same regularity that you have seen in the past.

I'm in NY City this evening, and I got to bring along my lovely bride. I'll be speaking tomorrow along side LaShawn Barber about blogging at the WJI Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith. I'll post up some thoughts later tomorrow, but for the most part, I'm going to spend my time sharing with students and having a nice time with my wife.

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the discussion between Michel Martin, Stephen Henderson and myself on the GOP debate, and Bush's push for No Child Left Behind. The segment on the new gospel music competition reality show is a great segment -- check it out as well.


You can listen on the NPR website right here.


Related:
On Air: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind
GOP Economy Debate


Other:
Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith