I was at the NRCC on Tuesday evening when Nikki Haley spoke….embarrassing.  She was so poorly spoken that people were leaving in droves.  Other people were talking amongst themselves so loudly that even if you had any intention of listening to her, you could not hear her.  She is done.  Nikki Haley is a universal joke in DC.  Too bad this website so vehemently supported her.

She will not even win her primary…if she even decides to run again.  I hear that Haley’s consultant, Jon Lerner, has privately told her that she is done barring some miracle.  Her approval rate in SC is 34.6% positive but apparently the internal polls are even worse and every donor is running for the hills.

When President Obama recently made his 3 recess appointments to the NLRB, it served a very important political purpose that few have considered. Obama needed a way to deal with Keystone XL pipeline without angering a segment of his base. He makes the NLRB recess appointments in exchange for big labor not voicing opposition when he disapproves the Keystone pipeline. Now the environmental groups are happy and so is big labor. He just effectively “split the baby.”

I had a torts professor in law school who had a reputation for being notoriously difficult to argue with when he posed questions in class.  In reality, he was not that difficult to argue with if you had done your research and were prepared.  Whenever he would ask a question and a student would give an answer, his instant response was, “what is your authority for that?”  He expected you to have a statute, case law, or some other form of precedent to back up your argument with.  This of course was great preparation for court because judges expect someone advocating a position to have legal authority for the arguments they advance.  Judges do not like it when lawyers simply invent theories out of thin air because judges rule by precedent.  Well, that is how they should rule in theory.

The point of me telling that story is that it will serve people well in almost any setting when engaging in a debate.  Politics and policy is certainly no exception.  So this leads me to the statement by many on the left that requiring a valid photo ID for voting will disenfranchise minority voters.  Really?  What’s your authority for that?

The argument goes something like this:  Requiring a valid form of photographic identification for the purposes of voting will disenfranchise minority voters because minority voters tend to be the poorest and thus many minority voters do not have photo identification because they cannot afford them or are unable to travel to the various agencies that issue photo IDs.  Therefore requiring a valid photo identification is a scheme devised by Republicans to disenfranchise minority voters who tend to vote in favor of Democrats.

Of course many on the right say things like, “you need an ID to get on an airplane, buy a gun, and to drive a car.”  These arguments are all true, I do not think I need to site authority here, we know from experience that they are true.  In the case of the poorest within society, lets assume they are not frequent air travelers, they cannot afford a car and are not hitting up the local hunting store for the newest Browning.  So what do the poorest people need a valid photo ID for?

We all know that you need a valid photo ID to buy alcohol, to buy tobacco, and to get a PO Box .  Since we are talking about the poorest amongst us, what about food stamps and welfare?  Do you need a valid form of ID to get those services?  In Virginia you do need a valid photo ID to apply for welfare.

I can hear the argument now, “Virginia is a state run by Republicans, that’s not true in other states!”  Really?  What’s your authority for that?  Lets look at California then: Do you need a valid photo ID to get food stamps in California?  It turns out that you sure do!  Illinois?  You have to prove your identity there too!  What about public housing?  Again, yes, you have to establish identity.

The fact of the matter is that you need valid photo identification to establish your identity in order to qualify for government programs as well.  The exact government programs that are designed to help the poor require photo IDs.  Of course this makes sense because the administrators of these programs want to eliminate fraud.

Poor people have IDs just like the rest of us, even the poorest of the poor.  To maintain these people do not does not withstand scrutiny because otherwise they would not be eligible to qualify for the programs the left surely wants them qualified for and dependant upon.  There is no malicious purpose for asking a person to show an ID and prove their identity prior to voting.   To prove that their is no malicious intent, states like Georgia have enacted programs for free identification cards.

This entire argument against providing an ID to vote is nonsensical.  The government enacts social welfare programs that are intended for the poorest citizens yet they are required to establish identity prior to receiving the benefits.  If the poorest people really could not acquire an ID because they did not have the means to, that would mean they would starve on the streets because they could not qualify for government assistance.  Obvioulsy this is not the case.  Nor is it the case that people cannot provide an ID to vote.  All of this posturing is nothing more than a thinly veiled cover for groups who actually do perpetrate voter fraud like the good gentleman from Mississippi who is now spending 10 years in prison.

Ron Paul was not present to vote on the NDAA this month.  Apparently Ron Paul has not taken any time to read the relevant portions of the bill because he is now warning us that the NDAA is our next step on the road to totalitarianism.  I guess he also does not employ any staff who read the law because if he did, he would not have made these statements:  http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/201335-rep-paul-says-defense-bill-assures-descent-into-totalitarianism

I know there is a lot of misinformation about this bill pertaining to the detainee language but it does not allow the military to take custody of U.S. citizens!  It gives the military jurisdiction over terrorists caught outside the United States.  Why?  Because this way the Obama Administration cannot even attempt to bring terrorists caught in foreign countries to the U.S., give them Constitutional rights and a trial in civilian courts!

In regards to the NDAA detainee language.  The detainee language in the NDAA does not allow for the detention of U.S. Citizens by the military.  If you read the relevant portions of the bill that pertain to detainees, it does specify Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Section 1021 says:

COVERED PERSONS.—A covered person under this section is any person as follows:

(1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks.

(2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.

Therefore, the detainee language that people are concerned about, only pertains to the people who were involved in the 9/11/01 attacks; Al-Qaeda; Taliban; or associated forces (groups like Haqqani Network or al-Shabab).  Also, to ensure that “associated forces,” cannot be understood or interpreted to include U.S. Citizens, subparagraph (e) of the same section states:

 (e) AUTHORITIES.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.

The next section of the NDAA is entitled, “Section 1022:  Military Custody for Foreign Al-Qaeda Terrorists.”  The people who can be held in military custody are those defined as “Covered Persons,” that I quoted above.  Within section 1022 it states:

 (b) APPLICABILITY TO UNITED STATES CITIZENS AND LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.

(1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States.

(2) LAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS.—The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to a lawful resident alien of the United States on the basis of conduct taking place within the United States, except to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States.

This section explicitly states that a U.S. Citizen cannot be detained in military custody.  Nor can lawful resident aliens.  Any U.S. Citizens who engages in terrorism, or any other type of criminal activity are entitled to the rights enumerated in the Constitution.  Specifically the 5th Amendment states that no person can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.  Every citizen is entitled to due process and nobody, not even the President, can waive this.  A U.S. Citizen cannot be detained indefinitely.

Also, in regards to the military arresting people.  Federal Law, 18 U.S.C. 1935, also known as the Posse Comitatus Act, prevents the military from conducting law enforcement activities within the United States unless it is allowed by the Constitution or an Act of Congress.  Congress has made no such act.  The NDAA does not allow the military to operate in a law enforcement capacity within the U.S, that is the job of the FBI and domestic law enforcement.

This bill does not limit any citizen’s rights, it merely allows the military to detain Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and other foreign terrorists that they capture on foreign soil.  Groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International who oppose the military detaining terrorists have spread rumors about this NDAA in order to scare people.  The ACLU want people opposed to the NDAA detainee language because they think terrorists captured in Afghanistan should be brought to the U.S. and tried in our civilian courts and given all the rights and privileges that the Constitution affords.

Conclusion:  Ron Paul is an idiot.

A few news sources this week reported on the Navy’s purchase of 450,000 gallons of biofuel.  Under the leadership of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, the Navy purchased the biofuel which is billed as an alternate to jet fuel (JP-5/8) for $12 Million.  The actual contract announcement is here:  http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4674

The biofuel industry has struggled within the United States and elsewhere because it is simply not cost effective and therefore doomed to failure within the free market.  With this contract the Navy is paying $26 a gallon for this jet fuel alternative.  The cost of regular JP-5/8 is $3.97.  Secretary Mabus is attempting to assure people that once the biofuel industry is performing at optimal conditions the price per gallon will come down.  That may well be true but a joint Navy/MIT study found that even under these optimum conditions the price of biofuel will still be twice as expensive as regular JP-5/8 and the “optimum conditions,” are not even close to being reality. http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/65796

The biofuel industry is yet another segment of the larger green industry that is impractical and doomed to failure without government help.  Secretary Mabus has been pursuing his vision of a “Green Fleet,” which appears to be nothing more than a way to use defense spending to prop up green industries.  In light of the recent failure of the super-committee and defense sequestration this entire notion of a “Green Fleet” is bordering on insanity.  Defense spending should not be used to prop up these impractical industries that are near and dear to Obama Administration.

I know a thing or two about military aircraft and fuel consumption within these aircraft as I fly the AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopter for the National Guard.  These military aircraft, be it fixed-wing or rotor-wing, absolutely guzzle fuel.  High performance machines tend to do that, just think about a Ferrari.  JP-8 weighs 6.7 lbs per gallon and when I conduct fuel checks during flight, the Apache normally burns about a 1,000 lbs of fuel an hour on average.  Depending on the weight of the aircraft, atmospheric conditions and the type of mission being conducted, that number can vary by about 200 lbs and hour.  If you do the math there, with biofuel at the prices the Navy just paid, my aircraft is consuming $3,880 of fuel an hour on average.  Compare that to $591 an hour with regular JP-8.  It is completely irrational that anyone would choose biofuel and force military aviation to pay that increased cost.

Within Congress the big question is how to stop defense sequestration from occuring in 2013.  The other question is if sequestration cannot be reversed or if it is merely limited, what military programs are going to be cut?  The biggest target as of now is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.  I would suggest that the Green Fleet and Secretary Mabus’ job should be number one on the chopping block.  $12 million and 450,000 gallons of fuel is a small number in terms of the Navy’s fuel requirements and costs.  However, it is indicitive of the overall wasteful government spending that is occuring in the name of “green energy.”

In closing, why not authorize the Keystone Pipeline; create thousands of jobs; acquire 700,000 barrels of oil per day from an ally, friend and neighbor; protect national security; and stop sending billions of dollars overseas to people who use a portion of that money to fund people who want to kill us?

It is snowing down here at Fort Rucker, AL.  Fort Rucker is located in what I affectionately call “LA,” which stands for “Lower Alabama.”  I am about 40 miles north of the Florida state line and it has been snowing for the last 2 hours and everyone who is from this area is basically losing their minds in utter panic.

As I sit here and watch the snow fall, I find myself wondering what Al Gore is thinking.  The weather this winter has been unusually cold across the United States and Europe and with this cold streak, the doomsday predictions associated with Global Warming have become all that more absurd.  Of course, they have always been absurd but the more gullible amongst us are now beginning to realize this as well.  Therefore, I am picturing Al Gore sobbing and pounding one foot while screaming, “why won’t anyone listen to me!”  I think this clip from South Park sums it nicely: