Monthly Archive for December, 2007

Jekyll Island Development: A Question of Fairness and Justice?

Published
by
Wilson
on December 24, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Last week, I interviewed Jim Langford, the Project Executive of Linger Longer about the status of the proposed development of a new Town Center on Jekyll. This week, Wade Shealy of the Jekyll Island Company responds.

The focus of the controversy is a simple question and answer asked by persons unknown and answered by persons unknown at at June 25, 2007 compulsory meeting. In this interview, Wade explains why neither the Jekyll Island Company nor any of the other companies submitting a proposal assumed that the question and answer changed the development project from a 45-acre development to a 63-acre development. His answer is fairly simple: The written request for proposal, RFP #244, said repeatedly: Do not exceed the 45 acres specified! If the JIA intended to change the acreage on something as important as a $500 million project, you would think that the one thing the JIA could get straight was the acreage to be developed.

Linger Longer seems to be hanging it’s hat on that question and answer. The ultimate success of that position will be determined by the Superior Court of Fulton County. A preliminary test is scheduled for January 14, 2008 when the court will hold a hearing on Jekyll Island Company’s request for an injunction to prevent JIA from going ahead with the development until the issues concerning the selection process are resolved.

If the court issues an injunction, it will be because justice demands it. The question will then be whether or not the JIA will continue to fight or do the right thing, the fair thing, and go through the selection process again.

Wade says that is all his company wants: a fair selection process. He is apparently willing to trust the JIA to make a fair selection, once the acreage issue is resolved. Wade may not have much of a choice, but I have little faith in the ability of JIA to do anything fairly when it comes to selecting one development proposal over another. Just about everything the JIA did in the selection process suggests secrecy and bias. Why you ask? Money!

At stake are profits which Wade estimates to be in the range of $500 million. Think about that: $500 million. $500 millioin in profit for a private company for the privilege of developing an island owned by the people of Georgia. This is not to minimize the risk involved, or to suggest that this level of profit is unreasonable. I simply don’t know. My point is the huge incentive for the selection process to become corrupted, for political favors to be paid, for campaign contributors to be rewarded, legally, so to speak.

A curious side note! Wade was appointed by Governor Perdue to the Georgia Land Conservation Council. On December 6, 2007 the Council announced the purchase of almost 20,000 acres in 3 Georgia counties at an expenditure of $92 million. Wade says he was advised that a press conference had been scheduled to announce the decision to purchase the property. The only problem: the press conference was being scheduled before the Council voted, which means the Council was expected to simply rubber stamp a decision that had already been made. Wade questioned the propriety of scheduling a press conference before a decision had been made. While Wade did vote for the purchases, his reward for asking the question: He gets a letter from Governor Perdue telling him he is no longer on the Council, effective at the end of the month!

And that ladies and gentlemen, is the state of leadership and politics in this great state on Christmas Eve 2007. If you voted for these guys, you asked for it, you got it!

 
 Wade Shealy, Jekyll Island Company [27:31m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (191)

Have You Heard of Presidential Signing Statements?

Published
by
Wilson
on December 23, 2007
in Blog
. 0 Comments

Sitting around the house over the holidays is a dangerous thing. I came across the website for the American Presidency Project, which contains a lot of information about the public papers of the Presidents, some as far back as 1789. You can find easy references to State of the Union addresses, inaugural addresses, radio addresses, executive orders and just about anything else you can think of relating to the public papers and statements of a president.

It also has for your reading pleasure the signing statements of presidents beginning with Hoover, Herbert, not J. Edgar. Never heard of a signing statement? Me neither! According to American Presidency Project,

A “Signing Statement” is a written comment issued by a President at the time of signing legislation. Often signing statements merely comment on the bill signed, saying that it is good legislation or meets some pressing needs. The more controversial statements involve claims by presidents that they believe some part of the legislation is unconstitutional and therefore they intend to ignore it or to implement it only in ways they believe is constitutional. Some critics argue that the proper presidential action is either to veto the legislation (Constitution, Article I, section 7) or to “faithfully execute” the laws (Constitution, Article II, section 3).

In 1929, the year of the crash, President Hoover saw fit to issue one such statement indicating his pleasure at signing a bill to build veteran hospitals. FDR signed 13 of them from 1941 through 1945, the years of WWII. It seems the frequency of issuing signing statements rose significantly after FDR. This is not surprising, since signing statements are, first and foremost, public relations tools whereby a president doesn’t just sign a bill, but either takes his share of credit for it or criticizes the Congress that passed it.

Our current president has magnified the controversy as to the legal implications of these signing statements. You have to remember that signing statements occur only where a president signs a bill into law. If he didn’t like the law, he could veto it. Instead of a veto, a president signs the legislation into law and uses a signing statement to put his spin on why he will not enforce it as written.

If you read a few of these statements, you may believe (and rightfully so) that Congress is always trying to make the president do something that he doesn’t think he should have to do. The phrase that epitomizes this attitude is “unitary executive,” a phrase apparently coined by the great communicator himself, Ronald Reagan.

The following language is contained in the signing statement issued when President Bush signed into law the Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act, 2006. In case you don’t recognize it by the name, this legislation incuded the McCain Anit-Torture Amendment which the President signed into law on December 30, 2005.

The executive branch shall construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power, which will assist in achieving the shared objective of the Congress and the President, evidenced in Title X, of protecting the American people from further terrorist attacks. Further, in light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2001 in Alexander v. Sandoval, and noting that the text and structure of Title X do not create a private right of action to enforce Title X, the executive branch shall construe Title X not to create a private right of action. Finally, given the decision of the Congress reflected in subsections 1005(e) and 1005(h) that the amendments made to section 2241 of title 28, United States Code, shall apply to past, present, and future actions, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in that section, and noting that section 1005 does not confer any constitutional right upon an alien detained abroad as an enemy combatant, the executive branch shall construe section 1005 to preclude the Federal courts from exercising subject matter jurisdiction over any existing or future action, including applications for writs of habeas corpus, described in section 1005.

I am sure we could argue about exactly what this language means, but it seems the clear intent of signing statements like this is to declare that the president gets to decide whether or not a law violates the Constitution. Thus, if the Congress makes if clear that we, as a nation, will not torture people, in this case detainees, the president gets to say this is the law only to the exent this prohibition is consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief.

The primary responsibility of the president is to enforce the law, not make it, and to some extent, not interpret it. The effect of these signing statements is to gut the balance of power established in the Constitution. The president signs a law and binds himself to enforce it, while at the same time thwarting the clear legislative intent of a valid law which he signed. The Supreme Court interprets and declares the law, but the president usurps that power by claiming the power not enforce those provisions of a law he has signed which he considers unconstitutional. He doesn’t go to court to have the law challenged. He just asserts a constitutional power that does not really exist, except in the impotency of a divided Congress.

The idea that a president can unilaterally decide whether or not a law he (or some president) has signed is constitutional was openly discussed in a 1993 memo by Bernard Nussbaum, Counsel to President Clinton. You can also read a 2006 ABA Task Force on Presidential Signing Statements and the Separation of Powers Doctrine on the use of signing statements for a better understanding of the impact of this practice on constitutional government which claims to be a government of laws.

I wonder how long this democratic society will continue where power is the goal of the great majority of all of our elected officials and the idea of a humble public servant is foreign to our politics.

Linger Longer at Jekyll Island: Fact or Fiction?

Published
by
Wilson
on December 20, 2007
in Podcast
. 2 Comments

Jim Langford is the Project Executive for Linger Longer, selected as the Revitalization Partner by the Jekyll Island Authority with regard to a proposed 45-acre development. Here is an aerial photograph of the Jekyll Island Site Development Plan.

Jim joined Linger Longer about 6 months ago. Surprisingly, he told me came from a long line of yellow-dog Democrats and even served on the DNR Board with two of my yellow-dog Democrat friends, Reese Thompson from Vidalia, and Jim Butler, from Columbus. Jim’s father served as a Democrat in the Georgia House and Senate. I mention this because Mercer Reynolds, the Reynold’s Plantation Reynolds and owner of Linger Longer, is a heavy Republican contributor.

Jim’s background is in environmental work, historical site restoration and archeological site preservation. He has previously been the State Director of the Trust for Public Land.

It was on the DNR Board that he met Jamie Reynolds, a cousin of Mercer Reynolds, who owns all or most of the Linger Longer company. According to Jim, Jamie’s grandfather had a cabin on the Oconee River in the early 1900’s which he called Linger Longer. The grandfather’s will provided that the property could not be sold or divided unless a dam was built on the river. And what do you know, in the 1970’s they built a dam, created Lake Oconee and the Reynold’s fortune was made, or at least a good portion of it.

The controversy surrounding the award of the development project to Linger Longer focuses on the request for proposal, RFP#244. There were 4 companies that submitted proposals. Three of them submitted proposals based on the proposed 45-acre development specified in the RFP. However, Linger Longer submitted a proposal to develope 63 acres. Linger Longer got the award. One of the companies that did not get the award, Jekyll Island Company, filed suit November 15th in Fulton Superior Court to set aside the award to Linger Longer because its proposal did not comply with the requirements of the RFP.

The question that I wanted to ask Jim and Linger Longer was why did they submit a proposal that covered more acres than the 45 specified? It seems to me that a company submitting a proposal on a project potentially worth millions of dollars certainly would not want to screw it up by failing to comply with the bid requirements.

This is what Jim told me. The RFP was put out in June 2007. A mandatory meeting was scheduled for June 25th. There is a note on the JIA webpage about this mandatory meeting on June 25, 2007. There is also a list of attendees and among them is Wade Sheally of the Jekyll Island Company.

According to Jim, during the June 25th meeting someone, not Linger Longer, asked a “key” question. The questions asked at the meeting are posted on the JIA website. The question to which Jim refers is as follows:

6. WILL PROPOSALS BE RESTRICTED TO THE TOWN CENTER SITE?
A. No, the RFP primarily addresses the Town Center Site because the JIA wanted to receive readily quantifiable and comparable offers for a specific property and project. The RFP also discusses the JIA’s desire to enter into a long-term partnership with the selected developer based on the results of this first project. Proposers are encouraged to discuss your interest in becoming the Authority’s long term development partner and how you would propose structuring the partnership in terms of future development opportunities on Jekyll Island. It could include a discussion of future development options, management of the Authority’s existing amenities and proposed financial structure for the partnership.

Jim and Linger Longer interpret this question and answer as somehow modifying the specifications contained in the RFP. Frankly, Jim, I don’t see it. It seems to me that the answer reaffirms that the JIA is seeking a partner for a particular project, the 45 acre project. Jim and Linger Longer will have to consult with their lawyers but I wouldn’t spend a lot of money until the Superior Court or even the Supreme Court rules. After the interview Jim advised that a hearing has been scheduled in Fulton Superior Court sometime in January on the issue of whether or not the Court will restrain the State and the JIA from proceeding with development of the Linger Longer proposal.

I should also mention that Senator Jeff Chapman had written to the oversight committee in the legislature, indicating his concern over the Linger Longer proposal. According to Jim, Sen. Chapman’s letter was written before the details of the Linger Longer proposal were known and he hopes the Senator’s concerns are being dealt with.

One of those concerns was the cost of accommodations on Jekyll as a result of the development. Jim told me that there are 4 hotels in the development, one of which is the fancy one attached to the conventiion center. The convention center rooms will cost $183 per night.

Jim denied that there was any back room deals in this process. He even indicated that a reporter in Atlanta who had initially been interested in looking into the matter further, had apparently become satisfied with the information available and was not pursuing the story any further.

Linger Longer and the JIA are now asking for public input to tweak the plan. If you want to let them know what you think you can check out rediscoverjekyll.com.

I intend to follow this saga and see how it turns out. Should be interesting, to say the least.

 
 Jim Langford, Project Executive, Linger Longer [28:45m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (182)

Rep. Jeff Lewis (R-15), Chairman House Energy Committee

Published
by
Wilson
on December 20, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Jeff Lewis is Chairmen of the House Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee. While the committee has a broad range of jurisdiction, this interview focused on energy. You may have heard of the ethanol plants being built in Georgia. The one in Camilla uses corn and the one in Treutlen County uses wood chips (pine trees). According to Lewis, it takes about 1 to 1.5 gallons of energy to produce one gallon of ethanol using corn. Wood chips take less energy to produce the same gallon of ethanol.

Georgia has more pine trees than any other state in the Union. If wood chips can be utiltized to produce ethanol efficiently, such plants could represent an economic boost to the state in the future.

When it comes to generating electricity, it is anticipated that in the next 10 to 15 years Georgia will need another 22 to 25 thousand additional megawatts of electricty per day. That could mean as many as twenty new power plants. That’s a lot of power plants! You may not realize it, but new power plants are being built all the time. While the Public Service Commission has responsibility to approve the construction of a new plant, the Energy Committee has the responsibility to set the guidelines by which new plants are considered and authorized.

You will not believe the number of power plants in Georgia, and most of them are not owned by Georgia Power. Many companies and cities apparently generate some amount of electricity.

The decision that is on the horizen is whether or not to change that focus from coal or natural gas plants to nuclear plants. A nuclear plant generates 1000 to 1500 megawatts of electricity. It can take 12 to 15 years to plan, permit and build a nuclear plant. The Energy Committee could increase electricity production in Georgia by shortening the time required to permit a new plant.

I get the impression from Jeff that nuclear power is coming, it is just a matter of when. The “Three Mile Island” incident in 1979 resulted in a virtual moratorium in the construction of nuclear generating plants. According to Jeff, nuclear power is the most efficient and cost effective energy source. He believes the issue of disposing of nuclear waste is being dealt with.

While the US obtains almost 20% of its electricity from nuclear power, Europe relies heavily on nuclear energy: France 80%, Italy and Spain 60%, and England 50%. Here’s a list of European countries with nuclear power plants.

Jeff also mentioned a new generating plant to be located in Clay County, which will generate 250 megawatts by burning “biomass,” such as peanut shells and pecan hulls. The Committee approved a sales tax exemption for the plant so that it did not have to pay sales tax on the raw products it buys to generate electricity. This incentive was necessary to convince the plant to locate in Georgia, rather than Florida or Alabama who were also competing to get it.

I also asked Jeff about comments attributed to him when the Committee met in August in which he expressed doubts as to whether or not global warming is real, and if real, to what extent do humans contribute to or cause it. Jeff took a lot of heat for those comments.

Like a lot of people, I believe global warming is real and that human generated greenhouse gases contribute to it, but the truth is, my opinion means absolutely nothing.

The concern is that while other states have passed laws setting goals for energy efficiency and emission standards, Jeff and other Georgia legislators apparently don’t believe that such measures are necessary. Jeff doesn’t want to do anything to handicap the state’s economy, when its competitors around the globe may not be doing likewise. He says that he and other legislators are educating themselves so that if and when they have to make substantive decisions for or against global warming, they can make the best decision for Georgia.

I think that global warming is an issue that is too big for individual states to resolve. This issue requires and demands leadership on a national scale. Without that kind of leadership, there will only be a continued unresolved controversy. It is just like the water problem we are now dealing with in Georgia. State leaders have known this problem was approaching for years and did nothing, primarily because to do something is to limit growth or spend a lot of money. Just like water, states will never effectively deal with the economic aspects of global warming until some crisis in the air or water quality exists. Just like water, that could be too late.

Jeff indicated that the Committee is not presently expected to consider any specific legislation during the ‘08 session.

 
 Rep. Jeff Lewis, (R-15), Chairman, House Energy, Utilities and Telecommunications Committee [30:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (149)

A Conversation with Jane Kidd, Chair, Democratic Party of Georgia

Published
by
Wilson
on December 18, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

It was just one of those days. This conversation with Jane Kidd, Chair of the Democratic Party of Georgia didn’t start out like I expected. My bad.

I am just tired of hearing day after day example after example of the total breach of the public trust by the Republican Party. Sorry, but these guys just don’t have any philosophy of government other than power make right. When they are in the majority, they just don’t care what anyone thinks, including the American public.

I am dealing with the news this week that the Republican child, Kevin Martin, who is Chairman of the FCC, together with his Republican cohorts, is going to ignore 100% of the imput by the public and approve further consolidation of the media in this country into the control of the very few. (It just passed.)

Everyone ought to be disgusted that they are actually debating in Congress giving corporations, the phone companies, immunity from being sued for breaking the law! The only reason they are considering that is because it was the Bush White House that broke the law with them!

It galls me even more to think there are Republicans out there who think this is just fine. Please, give them your rights, but let me keep mine! Barry Goldwater would throw up and he knew what being a Republican really meant, which isn’t something this new breed of power hungry, corrupt, hypocritical, hoodlums knows anything about. The don’t govern, they don’t attempt to govern, they pillage.

Example: An acquaintance of mine told me yesterday that he received a “Dear John” letter from Governor Purdue because he raised a question about the propriety of scheduling a press conference to announce a decision by the board on which he serves, before the board even met to consider the proposal! This is essentially the same thing our dear Governor and Tommie Williams did earlier this year when they removed Sally Bethea from the DNR Board. These boards aren’t there to rubber stamp what the Governor wants. They are there to exercise a degree of independence about what is good or not good for the people of Georgia. It isn’t just that any particular board may “kiss up” to the Governor, and do his bidding (like the Jekyll Island Authority), it is that they cannot even tolerate being asked a question!

Think that is too strong? Wake up everybody! The legislature convenes in less than 3 weeks. Jane and I discussed the probability that the ‘08 legislature is going to be one of the most contentious, and that may be saying a lot. It is going to be contentious because the Republican leadership’s idea of solving problems is that you agree with them and you vote for their proposition. Anything less than that, and you are simply ignored.

When it comes to the issues of water, property tax reform and many others, are the Republican leaders going to welcome imput from the Democrats (who happen to actually represent some Georgians) or experts who may have a different opinion? Probably not, because they have already decided they want and they believe they are right. So why bother with the opinion of others.

Are they going to protect the people of Georgia in resolving the water issue or are they going to mask their true motives and do what ever it takes make sure development in Atlanta continues? Are they going to try and gut the property tax base at the expense of every city and county in this state, because most of these guys own a lot of real estate? Are they going to ever do anything about the tort reform travesty of ‘05 when they declared that Emergency Room physicians couldn’t be sued if they negligently killed you?

Okay, enough! I will shut up and you can listen to the interview which didn’t dwell on this point nearly as long as I have in this post. I refuse to remember the $100,000 tax break Governor Perdue had snuck (or is it sneaked) into a legislative bill.

Enough!

2008 is the year! Throw the bums out!

And don’t forget that Hillary and Obama and Edwards are expected to be in Atlanta on January 30, 2008 for the Democratic Party’s Jefferson-Jackson Dinner at the World Congress Center. Get your tickets and see the next President of the United States.

If there is someone out there that would like to respond to any of these remarks, just send me an email and we will arrange an interview and you can make your case.

 
 Jane Kidd, Chair, Democratic Party of Georgia [25:11m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (169)

Campaign ‘08: Whose Electable? Obama and Giuliani!

Published
by
Wilson
on December 17, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Whose up and whose down? Who said the wrong word? Who has the right strategy. I can’t keep up!

Obama has Oprah, which makes the campaign the Story of Os.
Hillary (and Bill) can’t take cheap shots at Obama, which sounds sexist to me.
Edwards is the only Democrat talking like a Democrat, and can’t get the rest of Iowa to understand that we haven’t elected a sitting Senator (Obama and Hillary) since 1960.

Romney doesn’t think his Mormon faith should matter so that is all the man can talk about.

Giuliani probably can’t believe he is not currently the chosen one, considering his heroism on 5-28.

McCain gets the endorsement of The Des Moines Register and the Boston Globe, but is still apparently so desparate that he asks that Democrat/Independent, bi-polar, sorry excuse for a candidate in ‘00 Joe Lieberman to support him. I had rather be waterboarded. Actually, maybe this is waterboarding.

Huckabee has the faith of a preacher, but is betting on Ed Rollins to save his political soul.

And today, I find out that Ron Paul has raised another record $6 million in one day on the internet. That is like saying that someone other than Halliburton got a contract in Iraq. So what? However, I have to say go Ron Paul. By George, if nothing else, you may prove the power of the internet and people in time for ‘12.

It just seems to me that none of this makes sense. I am having a hard time keeping it straight. What I really think is this: The polls are wrong! I am betting the Iowa Caucus is having as much difficulty as I am. It’s an open race all the way to January 3, 2008. I think Edwards and McCain are the sleepers. I think Iowans are not telling the pollsters the truth. But hey, what do I know?

In this interview Bob Newman of Newman Communications, gives us his take on what is going on.

Bob thinks even though Obama is enjoying a lead in the polls, Clinton is going to edge out a victory in Iowa and New Hampshire. On the Republican side, Huckabee will win Iowa, not New Hampshire and South Carolina doesn’t matter because no preacher is going to be elected president.

The unfortunate candidates are McCain and Edwards, both of whom epitomize the core beliefs of their respective parties, but neither seem to be able to capitalize on the issues. McCain may be paying for his support of Bush and the War. Edwards should be the most electable but doesn’t seem to be captivating the electorate. But don’t count him out.

Georgia seemed to be Fred Thompson’s back yard a few months ago. Now, it appears that Fred is either lazy or old or both, but in any event he is out of it for all practical purposes.

Bob would like to see Obama get the nomination. It would make for an exciting election. His problem is trying to acheive broad appeal to whites and blacks. He is not talking about the typical black issues, so as to avoid being perceived as a Jesse Jackson. Clinton, on the other hand, has inherited Bill’s broad base of support among African Americans, which explains why Obama brought out the Oprah. For this reason, Bob wonders if Obama’s lead in the polls is legitimate and raises the possibilities that the Iowa electorate doesn’t want to say on the record that they aren’t voting for Obama.

All things said, the bottom line is who is the most electable? Bob says: Obama for the Democrats and Gulliani for the Republicans.

And the most important question: Is there any chance a Democrat won’t win in ‘08? Bob answers this question by saying that he thinks there is a chance that Giuliani could win.

If the Democrats can’t win in ‘08, I will just……

 
 Bob Newman, Newman Communications, Public Relations & Political Consultant [29:09m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (147)

Opening the Floodgates: The Purpose of “Immigration Reform”

Published
by
Wilson
on December 13, 2007
in Podcast
. 1 Comment

Kevin Johnson is an attorney, a law professor, an author and a proponent of open borders. He teaches at the University of California, Davis. He has written many books on the issue of immigration.

He was recently in Atlanta, speaking at Emory University. He caught my eye with an article he wrote that was published in The Sacramento Bee.

It is Thursday night and I am headed to Cleveland, but I wanted to post this interview before I left. I do not have time right now to comment on it as I ordinarily would, but this interview is one that you should listen to if you have any interest or concern in the “illegal alien” vs. “immigration reform” issues. You should also read the article in the Sacremento Bee.

Kevin is a proponent of open borders, what he sometimes refers to as permeable borders. You can listen to the interview and decide for yourself, but the important thing that I want to point out is this: Kevin makes it clear (at least to me) that the purpose of “immigration reform” is never going to be to build a fence. It will never be about securing our borders. It is never going to be to enforce the immigration law. It is never going to be about validating 10 to 12 million people who entered the country illegally. All of these are just stepping stones to the ultimate goal: OPEN BORDERS!

Kevin will tell you that America needs workers from the other side of the border, more than the 10 to 12 million here already. Kevin will tell you that just like the European Union, our uniting with Mexico would be good for the economy. Kevin will tell you that it is impossible to enforce the immigration laws and therefore a waste of time, just like Prohibition. Kevin will tell you that you can’t keep them from coming to America with a fence so why not embrace the idea of open borders.

Kevin will tell you a whole lot of things that sound reasonable. But what Kevin will not tell you is the truth about OPEN BORDERS. He will not admit that Mexico is a corrupt little country that has absolutely nothing to offer America except cheap labor, exploited and exploitable labor, the kind of labor that we had a century ago. They passed NAFTA and our American manufacturing industry went South. With open borders, they just want to bring the cheap worker north to the American jobs.

It is truly scary to me to think that there are leaders in this country who seriously contemplate a North American Union, who would even consider uniting this great country with a poor excuse for a democratic nation, or who would think that a steady flood of cheap labor from Mexico is just what the American worker needs.

Cheap labor! Think about it! The rich might want it, but they are less than 1% of the population (or somewhere in there). Big corporations and small employers might want it, so they can save a dime. But, I guarantee you, if you make anyone crossing the border legal and eligible to work, it will not be long before they will take the jobs Americans do want to do, because they will do them for a wage that is un-American, but far more than they can earn in that corrupt and poor little country south of the border.

I recommend you take a few minutes to visit American for Sovereignity. You don’t have to agree with everything anyone says about this issue, including me, but I suggest you not swallow “immigration reform” just because some politician tells you it is the right thing to do or the only thing to do.

This exact same thing happened with NAFTA and now just about everyone realizes we were duped. These lovers of cheap labor know that at some point, even if it was a bad idea, it goes too far and you can’t undo it. That is exactly what they want when it comes to open borders. Step by step, until it has gone to far and no one can stop the ultimate goal of open borders.

If you think I am wrong, prove it. I am ready for another interview!

 
 Kevin Johnson, Author, Lawyer, USC Davis [31:10m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (180)

Have Gun, Want to Travel! Better Check With GeorgiaCarry.org!

Published
by
Wilson
on December 12, 2007
in Podcast
. 1 Comment

Just this week the news was full of the nut that went around the parking lot of a church in Colorado shooting people and was gunned down by a church security guard. Graveyard dead!

Not too long ago the Virginia Tech murders made us wonder whether there was any safe place left in the world. That guy wasn’t shot by someone else, but at least he saved us the trouble of a trial and killed himself.

Is there any place that is safe in today’s world? I really don’t think there is. However, the chance is slim that our paths will cross the path of some crazy on a day when death is in the air. If I honestly thought I would arrive at that crossroad where my life were threatened, I would do whatever it took to protect myself, including toting a gun.

The quandry, at least in Georgia, is why don’t I have the right to tote that gun just in case that slim chance of encountering a crazy happens today? If the paths cross at my home, I can shoot to kill in self-defense. If they cross in my car, basically the outcome is the same. I can protect myself in my car. But, in Georgia it is basically illegal to carry a gun in broad daylight on the streets and in public places. If I carry that gun to protect myself in the parking lot of my church or Walmart or whereever other people have the right to be, I am probably breaking the law in Georgia.

And, as Shakespeare would say, therein lies the rub and it is that rub which GeorgiaCarry.org wants to change. John Monroe, V.P. of Georgia Carry, makes no apology for wanting the right to carry a gun just about anywhere he wants to go, Walmart, church, the park, and elsewhere. John is an attorney from Roswell, Georgia and specializes in Second Amendment issues. I may be oversimplifying John’s point, but as I understand it, John and Georgia Carry believe that if the Second Amendment gives them the right to carry a gun (to protect themselves), the laws of Georgia should not eviscerate that right by saying you can’t carry the gun in public places where you might need to protect yourself.

Where can you carry a gun legally in Georgia? That is not an easy question to answer and don’t take this blog as a legal opinion you can rely upon. You may go to jail. However, most of us understand that we can have a gun at home and in the car. But, the dangers we face of a deadly nature exist in places other than home or car (there may be issues of concealment, but that is another interview). What about on a college campus? Not in Georgia! What about at a public gathering of people who tote guns? Probably not in Georgia. Exactly where can an ordinary citizen can carry a gun is not easy to say, but let me offer this as a rule of thumb: Don’t take a gun anywhere outside of your home or car if you can see another person. I must agree with John that this really doesn’t make much sense.

I am not opposed to gun registration or certain levels of gun control, but I firmly believe that I have a constitutional right to own a gun and protect myself, my family and my property. Having said that, it does seem strange to me that the exercise of this constitutional right is so limited in Georgia.

To my surprise, John told me that Georgia has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. According to John there are states which actually allow you to carry a gun to a public event, like a sports stadium. That sounds so strange, and I can only conclude it must simply be the result of being raised in Georgia.

The thing I am dealing with is why does John Monroe’s desire to carry a gun into public places make me uncomfortable? If my friend who is a Vietnam veteran went with me to Walmart toting a gun, I would feel perfectly safe. I know that I would feel safer than if I went without him. So why don’t I want some person I don’t know toting a gun. They might be a Vietnam veteran, as well. Or they could be nuts!

You can take either side of this issue (toting guns in public) and logically argue the outcome you personally prefer. But, as John points out: it is a constitutional right. Not much argument there, but if voting is a constitutional right that can’t be unnecessarily restricted, why isn’t bearing a gun equally sacrosanct?

Having thought about this more than usual, I am sure of one thing. The reason that I would feel uncomfortable if I saw strangers walking around the parking lot at Walmart with guns on their hips is primarily because I am unfamilar with guns in general or people that tote them.

So should we balance the right to carry a gun in public places with the fear that the person carrying the gun will kill us? I will have to think about that some more, but it does seem to me that if it actually works elsewhere in the USA, we might try it in Georgia.

While John might not agree, if someone really wants to tote a gun in public, I would not be opposed to requiring them to demonstrate proficiency in gun safety and be subject to background checks. At least then, when I saw them with a gun on their hip in the Walmart parking lot, I would have some basis to assume they are a responsible person and not a crazy!

 
 John Monroe, GeorgiaCarry.org [27:57m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (172)

The State of the State’s Economy!

Published
by
Wilson
on December 12, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Robert Sumichrast, Dean of the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia, gives an overview of the Georgia economy. It sounds like Georgia is in good shape and can expect continued growth in 2008, but as the Dean said, there is a lot of risk out there.

So what can we expect in 2008?

Population: An increase of about 2% in 2008. It is this growth that demands we create new jobs.

New Jobs: In 2007 Georgia created about 55,000 new jobs. In 2008, we can expect about 44,000 new jobs.

Economic growth: 2.4% in 2008, which is about the same as 2007.

Drought recession: Businesses that are water intensive are in a recession. This year the state will lose an estimated $800 million in agribusiness production due to the drought.

Recession generally: about a 40% chance. I don’t like the word recession, but from an economic standpoint, it may not be that bad unless it lasts and lasts and lasts. Technically, a recession is 2 quarters of negative growth in the economy. That doesn’t mean you lost your job, but someone may not have gotten one they needed. Many times we don’t know if we are in a recession until it has already occurred.

Why is Georgia doing well in these times? Climate is a big attraction. One of the concerns about the current drought is that if it continues it may damage the state’s reputation for a favorable climate.

The drought that we are experiencing is the state’s worst ever. Dean Sumichrast points out that economic developers are now asking about the water supply in areas of Georgia. The very fact that the water supply is of concern means that unless an adequate water supply is assured, at some point this will adversely affect growth and the economy.

In fact, when I asked Dean Sumichrast what he would say to the legislature when it convenes in January, at the top of his list was dealing with the drought long term. This is going to require a major investment in infrastructure. Of course, the battle that is developing in 2008 is trying to solve the Metro Atlanta water crisis by depriving other areas of the state of water.

If we do experience a recession in Georgia, the main impact will be the loss of jobs in industries related to building materials, textiles and automobiles.

Other industries such as food and beverage manufacturing, equipment manufacturing, and pharmaceuticals, are likely to do better in the face of a recession.

Subprime lending scandal: Georgia is in better shape than much of the country because our home prices are not inflated. Rather, home prices in Georgia have increased at the same rate as average income has increased. For this reason, Georgia doesn’t have a dangerous price bubble that exists in other areas. He sees the housing market stable this next year with only a 1% to 2% decrease in home prices.

Savings: As elsewhere, savings in Georgia is very low. The problem is that consumers are relying on debt to finance purchases. A blip in the economy that interfers with the income necessary to pay that debt can result in a rise in foreclosures and bankruptcies, less purchases and a slow down in the economy generally. Be careful what you spend for Christmas!

The most surprising comment by Dean Sumichrast is that according to recent studies, Atlanta is the lowest cost city in the country in which to start a business. Atlanta has lower wages, good location and proximity to transportation, including the ports, all of which keeps the cost down. And I thought everything was high in Atlanta.

You can read more about the economic forecast here.

 
 Robert Sumichrast, Dean, Terry College of Business, UGA [28:34m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (165)

Should Women Fight in Combat?

Published
by
Wilson
on December 10, 2007
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

It may not be politically correct, but Kingsley Browne raises some legitimate concerns about the wisdom of women in combat in his new book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars.” Kingsley is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University and teaches about discrimination in the workplace.

More than 80 women have been killed in Iraq and more than 500 wounded, some seriously. Some of them were performing support roles and some were in the thick of combat. I must admit that thinking about a women lying bleeding and maimed on the road to Baghdad, makes me cringe. I can’t imagine looking at some of the recent WWII movies like “Saving Private Ryan” with women on the front line getting blown to bits. Is this difference in reaction, just me? Is it discrimination? Or is it just the way we are as men and women?

The obvious point that Kingsley makes is the fact that in virtually every other job that involves physical exertion, there tends to be an almost natural division of jobs between the sexes. Why are most trash collectors men? Why most nurses women? Why most farmers men? Is it a matter of discrimination, or just a natural preference of one type of job over another. The point is that we don’t see a need to encourage women to go into jobs that they generally do not choose, so why is the military so concerned about eliminating the same kind of distinctions in job assignments between men and women, particularly in combat zones.

In the name of equality, we are placing women is situations where their physical strength is an obvoius negative factor in their performance. Women may well be able and willing to drive support vehicles in a combat zone where the threat of death is real. But, if and when that ambush comes, no amount of desire and courage will necessarily allow a woman to lift the 500 lbs. of vehicle that is crushing her comrade to death. Thus, it is hard to deny that the presence of a woman in such a situation may make a tangible difference in survival.

And then there is the situation where the safety of a woman is threatened in a combat zone. Can we deny there is a natural tendancy for the male to protect the female. In a combat zone, if an injured comrade were a man, he might be left to deal with a threatening situation on his own. In the same situation, additional risks might be taken to protect or extricate a woman from danger. A mission could well be jeopardized by the presence of a woman and this is not a negative reflection on either sex, as much as it is a recognition of that inherent difference between the sexes.

Kingsley highlights three generally recognized differences between the sexes:

1. Physical ability and strength. While each is trained as a soldier, training standards recognize the difference between the sexes. Women are not expected to perform to the same level of strength as a man. Just as training is different, performance is difference because strength still matters in the military.

2. Psychological differences such as the willingness to take risks. Women, as a rule, have higher levels of fear. Men generally have a higher tolerance for pain. Women are naturally more compassionate, with higher levels of empathy. The differences might result in different outcomes in any particular combat situation. And what of the trauma of killing another individual? As Kingsley points out, women are going to react differently than men to the experience of killing another human being. We might well expect women to experience higher incidences of PTSD than men as a result of the combat experiences.

3. Effects on groups. Units exposed to combat situations generally develop higher levels of cohesion than non-combat groups. Males bond differently in all male groups than in mixed groups. Men trust individuals with masculine traits. Women generally do not make men feel safer. In mixed groups men tend to compete with each other for status in the eyes of the woman. Trust is the center of cohesion in a combat group and the greater the danger the greater the level of trust needed to maintain group cohesiveness. Thus, in those situations where group trust and cohesion may make the difference, the presence of a woman may have a negative impact and thus the ultimate outcome may be different.

According to Kingsley, women comprise about 11% of the troops sent to Iraq and 2% of people killed, which suggests that this innate difference between men and women in combat situations is recognized in reality. The push to have more women in combat may arise from women in the military. It is well known that combat experience is seen as a necessity to advance a military career. As more and more women join the military, they want the same opportunities for advancement and command as men and they know that combat experience is important to promotion. Thus, it may be difficult to avoid involving more and more women in combat situations.

 
 Kingsley Browne, Author [28:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (74)