Valuable Information about Environment, Family And Relationships And More

President Bush said Saturday that Americans may have cause this Labor Day weekend to start worrying less about the nation’s — and their families’ — economic health.

“There have been some recent signs that our economy is beginning to improve,” Bush said in his weekly radio address.

Among the positive signs that Bush referenced was a report Thursday that the overall economy, as measured by the gross domestic product, rose by 3.3 percent in the April-June quarter. This surprised analysts and was a significant rebound from growth of just 0.9 percent in the first quarter of the year. Most credit was given to the $93 billion in economic stimulus payments the federal government has sent to households since May.

However, other economic news this week showed that right after that second quarter, in July, consumer spending slowed to a crawl and personal incomes plunged.

With few stimulus payments still to go out, some economists worry consumer spending will continue to falter. Since it accounts for two-thirds of economic activity, that could send economic growth tumbling again in the second half of the year, particularly given rising unemployment, a continuing credit crisis and the deepest housing slump in decades.

Democrats, including presidential nominee Barack Obama, are calling for the government to pass a second stimulus package to guard against that.

But Bush has resisted, expressing concern about the impact on the budget deficit and insisting the rebate payments will continue to support the economy in coming months.

He praised the impact of the current stimulus package in language that suggested he remains opposed to another.

“The economic stimulus package that I signed earlier this year is having its intended effect,” the president said. “Many Americans who received tax rebates are spending them. Businesses are taking advantage of tax incentives to purchase new equipment this year. And there are signs that the stimulus package will continue to have a beneficial impact on the economy in the second half of the year.”

Still, despite his optimistic outlook, Bush took care to express sympathy with those grappling daily with pocketbook worries.

“There are families across our country struggling to make ends meet,” he said. “There is an understandable concern about the high price of gas and food. And many Americans are worried about the health of our housing and job markets. I share these concerns about our economy.”

Whatever happened to the Republican Party’s war on pork?

It never was the full-fledged assault envisioned by conservatives, but the GOP’s battle against parochial home-state projects sought by members of Congress has faded into oblivion.

Just months ago, most Republicans in the House swore off pork barrel projects — at least until new reforms could be put in place. The moratorium on such “earmarks” was to be a key plank in the House GOP’s fall platform, issues Republican candidates will emphasize in their campaigns.

Since then, it’s been supplanted by high gasoline prices and the weak economy as dominant campaign issues.

But there’s another factor, too. The appetite for home state earmarks among Republicans — including some party leaders — is almost as great as ever, despite warnings from some conservatives that GOP lawmakers’ refusal to give up their earmarks is costing support among core constituencies.

For example, Roy Blunt, the Missouri lawmaker who’s the No. 2 Republican in the House, last February was touting the GOP’s “desire for change (on earmarks) and our commitment to get it done.”

Last month, Blunt claimed credit for a host of projects, including $500,000 for an energy efficient roof on a local courthouse and a $1 million renewable energy research grant for a community college, saying the “funding will send your tax dollars back to be used in your neighborhood — where it belongs.”

All told, Blunt obtained about $10 million for his southwest Missouri district from the handful of bills revealed by the Appropriations panel, which doles out the largess. More are certainly on the way once bills funding the Pentagon and its many contractors, transportation projects and economic development grants are approved.

Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who led a charge on earmarks early this year, barely raises the topic now. He’s not one to criticize Republicans who grab pork.

“Not every earmark is bad, but my goodness, they ought to pass the straight face test,” Boehner said.

The issue had such traction earlier this year that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was entertaining the idea of a temporary moratorium on pet projects and grants. Strong resistance from rank-and-file Democrats dissuaded her. Democrats then blocked a plan by House Republicans to impose a temporary ban on earmarks until new bipartisan reforms could be proposed.

The Senate in March voted overwhelmingly, 71-29, to reject a one-year ban on earmarks, even though all three major presidential candidates then supported the idea.

Democrats point to reforms put in place last year, including greater transparency requirements that include publicly disclosing the specific names of the entities that would get earmarked grants and projects. They also reduced earmarks by more than 40 percent from levels in the 2006 budget bills passed by Republicans.

This year, Democrats say they will freeze earmarks at current levels, a vow that seems to be borne out in data accumulated by Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington-based watchdog group. It’s still early, however.

Many of the bills — including the annual defense spending measure that is usually rich with special projects not sought by the White House or the Pentagon — have yet to be approved by the pork-dispensing appropriations committees.

An already slow appropriations season — Democrats don’t want election-year battles with President Bush over the government’s budget — has ground to a halt over a bitter dispute surrounding a GOP effort to use the annual spending bills to lift a moratorium on offshore oil exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf.

As a result, just one bill, funding veterans programs and military construction projects, has passed the House. A move to strip out lawmaker projects not requested by the administration bombed on a 350-63 vote.

Party conservatives had tried to convince Republicans to unilaterally give up their pork to draw a contrast with earmark-hungry Democrats. But an informal tally found Republicans against the idea by a significant margin and it was dropped.

Still, 41 House members, including four Democrats, have sworn off earmarks this year. Ironically, that leaves more pork for GOP lawmakers who are still taking it.

Former Rep. Pat Toomey, R-Pa., who heads the Club for Growth, a group that backs economic conservatives in GOP primaries, says Republican voters are responding favorably to anti-earmark candidates, who won recent House primaries in Pennsylvania and California.

Toomey’s group is running ads against endangered Alaska GOP Rep. Don Young, a 36-year House veteran and sponsor of the infamous “bridge to nowhere” who may not survive his state’s primary election on Tuesday.

But he acknowledges that GOP leaders have mostly dropped the subject.

“Even though it would be very beneficial politically, it’s hard when a very substantial portion of the conference isn’t on board,” Toomey said. “Then of course came skyrocketing gas prices and the opportunity to draw a real contrast on drilling.”

Republican John McCain took his campaign high above the waters of the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday, visiting an offshore oil and gas rig and predicting many more like it along the U.S. coasts if he is elected president.Hoping to highlight his support for new offshore drilling, a hot political issue as Americans face rising energy costs, McCain climbed around open-air platforms, peered at the giant drills and chatted with workers over the roar of machinery.

“We need to start drilling offshore on advanced oil rigs like this one,” he said on board the 9-year-old Chevron Genesis hull/spar facility. “New drilling has got to be part of our energy solution.”

McCain claimed his Democratic opponent Barack Obama, whom he faces in the November 4 election, opposes new drilling.

However, Obama recently said he would back limited offshore drilling as part of a broader package in an attempt to bring down gas prices and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Dropping his blanket opposition to expanded offshore drilling, the Illinois senator signaled support for a bipartisan compromise in Congress aimed at breaking a deadlock on energy that includes limited drilling.

Opinion polls show a majority of the public supports expanded drilling to try to battle rising gas prices, although federal officials say it would take years for any oil to be produced from new drilling, and experts say perhaps a decade before the drilling would have any effect on prices at the pump.

Chevron’s Genesis facility, some 100 miles offshore and 140 miles from New Orleans, produces 10,000 barrels of oil a day and 15 million cubic feet of natural gas, officials said.

McCain had planned to visit the rig in July but canceled the trip when Hurricane Dolly threatened the Gulf of Mexico.

McCain was accompanied on the hour-long visit by a small cadre of media who followed him along the vertigo-inducing open platforms 150 feet above the water. A school of bluefish and a barracuda were visible in the 2700-foot-(823 meters)deep water below.

He rode out on a helicopter over wetlands, levees and homes still scarred from Hurricane Katrina three years ago.

McCain said conservation, alternative energy such as solar and wind and traditional sources such as clean coal and nuclear power should be combined with new offshore drilling efforts.

“When I’m president, there will be a whole lot more like them, not only here in the Gulf but also off of our East and West Coasts,” he said. “We need to drill offshore and we need to do it now.”

The proposal in Congress would open additional areas in the Gulf of Mexico for development and allow drilling off Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia if those states give permission. Production would still only be allowed 50 miles (80 km) from shore.

A Bush administration proposal that would eliminate the input of independent government scientists in some endangered species reviews would be tossed out if Democrat Barack Obama wins the White House, his campaign says.

“This 11th-hour ruling from the Bush administration is highly problematic. After over 30 years of successfully protecting our nation’s most endangered wildlife like the bald eagle, we should be looking for ways to improve it, not weaken it,” said Obama campaign spokesman Nick Shapiro. “As president, Senator Obama will fight to maintain the strong protections of the Endangered Species Act and undo this proposal from President Bush.”

A spokesman for Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Republican presidential nominee, said he had no comment on Bush’s revisions.

The Associated Press reported Monday details of a proposal by the Interior and Commerce departments that would change how the 1973 law is implemented, allowing federal agencies to decide for themselves — without seeking the opinions of government wildlife experts — whether dams, highways and other projects have the potential to harm endangered species and habitats.

Current law requires federal agencies to consult with experts at the Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service if a project poses so much as a remote risk to species or habitats.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne defended the changes in a call with reporters Monday, calling them narrow modifications to make the law more clear and efficient.

In recent years, both federal agencies and developers have complained that the reviews, which can result in changes to projects that better protect species, have delayed work and increased costs.

The proposed regulations, which will be published Thursday in the Federal Register, included one significant change from the earlier draft: The public comment period was cut in half, from 60 to 30 days.

“In this case, it was determined that we needed to move forward in a timely fashion,” said Interior Department spokeswoman Tina Kreisher.

If the proposal should become final by November, a new administration could propose another rule, a process that could take months. Congress could also pass legislation, but that could take even longer.

An aide for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee said that panel would hold a hearing on the rule changes when Congress returns in September.

Republican John McCain quickly took a hardline stand against Russia after it sent troops and tanks into the former Soviet state of Georgia. Democrat Barack Obama’s initial condemnation of Russia was tempered by a call for diplomacy and restraint on all sides.

The crisis offers opportunities and risks for both presidential candidates and their reactions could provide a window on the next commander-in-chief.

For McCain, the issue plays to what polls show is his strength: national security. But the 71-year-old ex-Navy aviator and longtime member of the Senate Armed Services Committee could overplay his hand if he sounds too warlike to a U.S. electorate weary of war.

For Obama, vacationing in Hawaii, the conflict provides a chance to look presidential in an evolving international crisis, striking a balance between standing up to Russian muscle-flexing while promoting the need for diplomacy. But for him there is the risk of not sounding tough enough.

Obama must have been mindful of that. His position has hardened markedly since Friday, when he told reporters on his campaign plane that both sides in the conflict should exhibit restraint.

“Now is the time for action — not just words,” he said Tuesday in a written statement. “It is past time for the Russian government to immediately sign and implement a cease-fire. Russia must halt its violation of Georgian airspace and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia, with international monitors to verify that these obligations are met.”

With that, Obama’s remarks sounded more like the stern ones issued first by McCain and then by President Bush.

Susan Rice, a top Obama foreign policy adviser, defended the call for restraint.

“It was not clear at that stage” what the actual conditions were and Obama wanted to react cautiously “rather than shooting from the hip.”

Obama’s “subsequent statements have been a reflection of events on the ground,” Rice said.

McCain has tried to portray the 47-year old Obama as lacking the experience and judgment to lead the country in a dangerous world. Obama has criticized McCain for supporting the original Iraq invasion which polls show many voters now consider a mistake.

No matter who is elected, the next U.S. president will face more tensions with Russia.

Russia’s financial clout has increased considerably since Bush took office — largely on a run-up in oil and gas prices. Yet the huge nation which once dominated the Soviet empire suffers pent-up frustration over its loss of status on the world stage.

Europe now depends on Russia for roughly one fourth of its natural gas, and tiny Georgia is an important pipeline route for transporting oil and gas from the Caspian Sea to the West.

“There’s no question the one relative strength McCain has in the polls is on national security. So every chance he gets, every way he gets, he tries to turn the conversation in that direction,” said Democratic pollster and consultant Mark Mellman.

“If anybody were paying attention, it might help McCain marginally.” But Mellman said the crisis with Russia hasn’t struck a chord yet among everyday Americans “who are absorbed with our own war, with our own economic crisis.”

Earlier this year, McCain called for expelling Moscow from the Group of Eight major industrial democracies because of Vladimir Putin’s expansion of state control over society and commerce.

McCain also has poked fun at Bush’s claim that he looked into the Russian’s eyes in 2001 and saw the soul of a good man. McCain said when he looked into Putin’s eyes he only “saw three letters: K-G-B.” The former Russian president and now prime minister, Putin is a former KGB officer.

In Erie, Pa., McCain denounced “Moscow’s path of violent aggression” and said “Russian President (Dmitry) Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term consequences” of their actions.

On Friday, Obama told reporters en route to Hawaii that he was getting regular updates on the violence and that it was important for the United States to work with international partners to end the conflict.

“I wholeheartedly condemn the violation of Georgia’s sovereignty. I think it is important at this point for all sides to show restraint and to stop this arms conflict. Georgia’s territorial integrity needs to be preserved and now is the time for direct talks,” he said.

Obama has been criticized by Republicans before for his willingness to meet Iranian, Cuban and other hostile leaders with no or few conditions. And his remarks about diplomacy and restraint on “all sides” raised the question of whether he failed to grasp the scope of the Russian invasion.

“The restraint-on-both-sides argument is not very smart. It’s true on one level, but it’s not the right thing to say first,” said Michael O’Hanlon, a military and foreign-policy analyst at the Brookings Institution.

At the same time, McCain’s belligerent attitude toward Russia — his proposal to boot Russia out of the Group of Eight and his harsh criticism of Putin — may have seemed mean-spirited earlier but now seem more appropriate. “I don’t think it necessarily hurts Obama, but I think McCain has been vindicated,” said O’Hanlon.

Polls suggest voters trust McCain more on international affairs. But a recent CBS News poll showed both men slipping and McCain’s large lead narrowing slightly.

In the poll, 20 percent said Obama was “very likely” to be an effective commander in chief, down 4 percentage points from last month. McCain was seen as “very likely” to be effective by 38 percent of respondents, down eight points from last month but still well ahead. The poll surveyed 906 registered voters July 31-August 5.

1. Absolutely!!

2. No. The President needs to be intelligent and powerful enough not to be a puppet.

3. Nope.

4. Oh my god no. She is the freakiest person I ever heard of. She makes absolutely no sense when she talks. She speaks in that government speak and does not make any sense. Have I mentioned she makes no sense?

5. Possibly, a black woman being president would be GREAT, but I don’t think there’s a chance she would ever run. She does seem to agree with EVERYTHING Bush does, other than that I think she could handle the job.

6. From what I have seen of her, I would seriously consider her as a viable candidate.

7. I would sooner vote for Condie than for Hillary

8. Helllllllllllllllllllllll Nooooooooooooooooooo!

9. It depends on who she ran against but she is definitely very highly regarded by me.

10. nope…no way …not a frig’n shot, she’s as bad as bush and darth cheney

11. Possibly, yes. IMHO, she’s the most qualified woman in America. However, she has never held an elected position in government. I say that she’d be a good VP running mate for the republican party … that would get Hillary’s and the democrat party’s panties in a bunch!

12. I would vote for her before I would Hillary Clinton. And with the way she handling foreign relations and the mid-eastern peace talks I think she would make a good president.

13. Maybe, depend on the other choice

14. She was so weak as the national security adviser and the Secretary of state that Donald Rumsfeld and the defense department bullied their way in to dictating what state department policy should be.

She would be a weak president.

15. depends on her stances and ideals, but i wouldn’t out right rule it out.

16. You bet. It’s nice to have a leader with class. And she’s tough and is a good speaker.

Joey, what a great idea!

17. No, since I never voted for her in anything in the first place. I want to know who the People get to nominate? All we get is a premade selection of choices that I would never make in the first place.

Liberty is the essential heart of freedom. Liberty means being able to choose one’s own actions, without intrusion by government. Every law that restricts your movement, your actions or your words is one that restricts your liberty.

Privacy is the notion that the government will not intrude upon actions that you intend to be private. For instance, intercepting someones mail violates their privacy, as it is expected that only the recipient of the mail will read it.

Every infringement upon privacy can therefore potentially result in a infringement of liberty. For example, a wiretap could lead to an arrest.

People have a right to privacy, that is, they have a right to expect that the government will do as little as necessary to intrude upon their rights. This right is expressly provided for in the bill of rights. These rules govern due process. This is why the police must obtain a warrant to do a search