Presidential Primary: Anti-Mitt means vote Ron Paul for now

It's Presidential Primary Election Day. I don't really care for Mitt Romney - way too liberal, health care being only one issue where I disagree. In the Primary, I'm going to vote for Ron Paul, just so someone else can have a chance.

I prefer Newt Gingrich, but he's not on the ballot in VA (neither is anyone else but Romney and Paul). I think Gingrich has the best shot at taking out Obama in the debates. If Mitt Romney doesn't have a majority in the primary, anybody can win at the convention.

Re: The first million

Since NBC's parent company's president and CEO is in the pocket of the administration, I don't really care what they say.

Their bias is demonstrated in their assertion that the Chamber of Commerce, the premier organization supporting small business, which itself provides the majority of jobs in this country, is "pretty far removed from Main Street Virginia."

By the way, I never signed up for emails from you, and considering you are also in the proverbial pocket of the administration, I also don't care about most of what you say.

Thank you,

Michael Pollard

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Tim Kaine <info@kaineforva.com> wrote:

Dear Michael,

I wanted to make sure you saw Mike's email from yesterday -- it's important to know what this campaign is up against. The truth is that the political attacks we've seen recently are just the beginning. We have a long road ahead, and it's going to take all of us working together to score a big victory for the people of Virginia.

In the past month, I've traveled all across Virginia, sharing ideas for how to keep our economy growing and hearing concerns about the need for increased access to capital and a talented workforce to help businesses expand and hire new workers. That's what this campaign should be about. But in order to cut through the negative ads and get our message out there, I'm counting on your help.

Can you make a contribution -- even as little as $5 -- to help us add 43 more donors before midnight tonight so that we can finish out February on a strong note?

Like Mike said, our campaign doesn't count on outside special interest groups that can raise unlimited amounts of money. This campaign is powered by grassroots supporters like you.

Thank you so much for your support. Together, there's nothing we can't accomplish for the people of Virginia and our country.

Tim Kaine

 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Henry
Date: Tue, Feb 28
Subject: The first million

Tim--

Election Day is over eight months away, and outside special interest groups have already poured more than a million dollars into television ads attacking Tim Kaine. Every single one of them has been called "false" by independent fact-checking organizations.

The truth is that we're not just competing against George Allen's campaign. We know of at least three special interest groups that are going to spend millions more in the coming months, flooding the airwaves with more blatantly false attack ads in an attempt to destroy Tim Kaine's good name and mislead Virginia voters.

George Allen is relying on his special interest cavalry to fund nasty attack ads. We're relying on you. Tomorrow marks the end of another month, and we need to make sure we have the resources to respond to the false attacks and spread Tim's message of job creation across Virginia.

Can you make a contribution -- even as little as $5 -- and help us add 96 new donors before we close the books on February tomorrow night?

Just yesterday, NBC 12 reported on the latest attack ad from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, noting that the group is "pretty far removed from Main Street Virginia" and acts on behalf of special interests. Their negative ad, rated "False" by an independent fact-checking organization, even prompted the Virginia Chamber of Commerce to publicly distance itself from the group.

While George Allen's Cavalry has been focused on launching false attacks, Tim has been traveling across the Commonwealth meeting with business and community leaders. He's also spoken with members of several local Chambers of Commerce. He knows we need to help our communities expand businesses, create jobs, and develop talent.

We can't let one million dollars from outside groups spent on false attack ads -- and that's just the beginning -- deter Tim from working towards the priorities that matter.

Help us gather the resources we need to fight back. There are 48 hours to go to finish the month strong -- please make a contribution now. Even as little as $5 makes a difference.

Go get 'em.

Mike Henry
Campaign Manager

 

   

 

Contact Us  | Facebook | Twitter

Paid for by Kaine For Virginia

Contributions or gifts to Kaine for Virginia are not tax deductible.

To unsubscribe or change your email preferences, please follow the link below:

Environmentalists protect a lizard, kill eagles

Environmentalists are blocking drilling for oil in Texas, in the guise of protecting a lizard that they say is endangered. But at the same time, wind farms are killing dozens of endangered golden eagles - and they won't stop them.
Hypocrisy in action.

Basketball vs Revolution and Disaster

Interesting (and concerning) that during this time of global difficulty, our President has little time for anything other than basketball.

He spoke a few weeks ago, encouraging the youth of the middle east to rise up and demonstrate. Now that Libya is in flames, he is silent.

Japan has experienced their worst disaster of any kind since World War II, but they are handling it peacefully. No violence, no protests, no looting. And our President is silent.

Instead, he attends basketball games and releases his picks for March Madness.

That's Just Not Right

We are in the middle of a Congressional election campaign between a 28-year incumbent Democrat, Rick Boucher, and a challenging Republican, Morgan Griffith.

Somebody is sending out political text messages, without any identification, that are considered "smear attacks" against the Democrat.

Problem is, these messages seem to be sent BY the Democrat's campaign and his supporters, and Rick Boucher's Congressional office -- in official capacity -- is then claiming the Republican's campaign sent them. What is clear is that the Republican, Morgan Griffith, has categorically denied knowing anything about these messages or being involved with them in any way.

It's one thing to point out your opponent's bad actions.

It's quite another to do them yourself solely to blame him for them.

Letter to Senator Mark Warner

I just received a letter from Senator Mark Warner. This is a reply.

--------------------

Thank you for your email.

Thank you for letting me know that you strongly support additional bailouts for favored businesses.

I realize that the small business package includes some things that will be positive, like allowing those who choose to invest in capital to write off the balance more quickly. However, allowing the current tax rates to expire on most of these businesses (taxes on the "rich" who own these businesses and file personal returns that reflect the business income) will cost far more than this plan could ever save.

Moreover, the majority of the cost (which will have to be paid for, despite the claim that it doesn't cost anything) is for direct bailouts (loans) for favored businesses. The loan industry has no shortage of funds available. The $1.5b is minor compared to the $300b already available. This money will go to companies, like those you indicated, which are politically favored, and some of whom do not have a sound business model which would be required to otherwise get loans. And which will be required to actually succeed and to pay back the loans.

In addition, while the deductions on capital investment may reduce the short-term cost of business growth, the new healthcare regulations will greatly increase the cost of employees. In other words, recent regulations still create an environment that is strongly negative for jobs growth.

It is laws like these that have overseen the increase in unemployment from 7.2% under Bush to over 10% under Obama. These laws with more regulation and higher taxes have made things so bad that some experts do not expect unemployment to ever return to the low rates that President Obama inherited.

(Originally posted at http://warner.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=NewsletterReply)

Louisiana and the Oil Spill

I just found out that Louisiana actually has developed a plan over the past years to contain oil spills to keep them off their coast and out of their sensitive marshlands.

Yet you hear a lot on the news about how the oil threatens the marshes. Which is the truth?

Actually, the oil does threaten the marshes, despite Louisiana's plans. Why?

Because for Louisiana to implement their plans, they have to have Federal permission.

And the Federal government is far more concerned with blaming BP, with fining BP, with shutting down oil drilling nationwide, with holding press conferences, and with having hearings.

Louisiana asked for permission within days of the oil leak starting. And, despite it now being over a month later, the Federal government has still not allowed Louisiana to do anything to protect themselves.

If we didn't know before, we know now. This isn't about fixing anything. It's not about taking responsibility, which BP has already done. It's about blaming. It's about repudiation. It's about publicly humiliating anybody and everybody that the current Federal administration doesn't like. And the oil leak continues.

Times Square Would-Be Bombing - Correction

My original post on Times Square has been corrected. Seems some of the facts were a little confusing, since the would-be bomber actually has close ties to BOTH major radical Islamic terrorist organizations.

Too bad Attorney General Eric Holder won't admit even the possibility of any "radical Islam" influence in the situation in Times Square. Might make keeping things easier to keep straight if the government would actually find out what's going on rather than trying to appease everyone who hates us. Or if they would even admit the intelligence findings that have already been released to the press.

Bomber on no-fly list on flight: Airline's fault?

The government says that the bomber who was on the no-fly list getting on a flight was effectively the airline's fault.

The policy requires airlines check every 24 hours for a new/updated list. This guy was a new addition, so he got missed. And they are now changing the policy to require airlines check for new/updated lists every two hours.

But is it ultimately the airline's responsibility? Isn't that what the TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is for? Every individual person goes through a security screening, and every individual person gets looked at by a TSA agent.

But the government says it's the private airline's fault, not the TSA that they oversee.

Bomber on no-fly list still gets on flight

Faisal Shahzad, the man who set up the bomb in Times Square, was on the no-fly list.

Yet he got on a flight to Dubai, and almost left. He was apprehended from the plane, just before take-off.

And the White House Press Secretary says that the "security system" and its "fallback procedures" were "in place" and that "they worked."

The guy was on the no-fly list. He was minutes from taking off, when somebody happened to notice his name on the boarding list. And this is an example of how the system "worked"?

New York did an excellent job. The citizens noticed and reported the suspicious activity. The information on the vehicle was tracked down. But the perpetrator, who was on the Federal no-fly list, was still allowed on an international flight, right under the eyes of the Fed?

How many times do people on no-fly lists have to get on flights before somebody straightens things out?

(BTW: Oh, and how many news reports have you heard that mentioned that he's a Muslim who came from Pakistan and has ties to both Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Not many, I'll bet.)

Update: Sorry; it was a Taliban training camp he trained in last year. Corrected above.

Update 2: No, it actually was an Al Qaeda training camp. Confused because the Taliban took credit for the bomb, but it was Al Qaeda that he trained with. Seems he's actually related to both. Re-corrected.

Too bad Attorney General Eric Holder won't admit even the possibility of any "radical Islam" influence in the situation. Might make keeping things easier to keep straight if the government would actually find out what's going on rather than trying to appease everyone who hates us. Or if they would even admit the intelligence findings that have already been released to the press.

Oil Rig Sinking

Well, I feel a little bit better in one way, though not so much in another.

On the one hand, at least I'm not the only one thinking this, but on the other hand, if it's true, that's scary.

I just heard a local (relatively local, in Tennessee, but nationally-syndicated) radio host say that he was thinking the same thing.

OK, I'm leading in to something.

I was simply thinking that it seems quite a coincidence that we've had a lot of mining disasters in the past year or so. And now, we've had an oil rig sink, resulting in probably a bigger oil spill than the Exxon Valdez.

This particular oil rig survived the brunt of Katrina. We know it was in the path for that. It was probably in the path for a lot more, like Ivan (which I was in Pensacola FL during). And now the pressure from fire hoses from fire boats was enough to break it off its moorings and cause it to sink? Really? After an unexplained fire?

Is it just coincidence that we've had all these situations, right now as those in political power are pushing for restrictions and fees on fossil fuels?

Is it a coincidence that we had an oil rig mysteriously blow up and sink - and that the fail-safe auto-cap mechanism also mysteriously failed - and all without any ability to investigate what happened to either one?

And right after a President who has made no secret of his dislike of the petroleum industry, under strong pressure from members of his own political party, just approved research into off-shore drilling? A move that is now suspended indefinitely, making him look like he was on the right side all along?

A President who has worked all his political life among "community organizer" groups who are used to "heavy-handed" tactics to get their way?

A President who has worked all his political life in and around Chicago, the home of political corruption perhaps only second to New Orleans?

Which is, coincidentally, the home of the group he worked with most of his working life, ACORN, and their brother group, SEIU. And, coincidentally, where the oil rig incident occurred.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm no conspiracy nut. I tend to believe people mean exactly what they say, until proven otherwise. And I tend to believe the Ockham's Razor theory - that if there are two possibilities, the simpler answer is more likely the correct answer.

But you also know what they say about something that seems like too much of a coincidence...

33 Mine Accidents; Coincidental?

There have been 33 mine accidents so far this year, with associated investigations into operational safety, and it's only April.

President Obama hates coal mining. In a discussion on energy (back a while, concerning Cap and Trade), he said he was going to put coal mining out of business.

President Obama is very close with union thug organizations (SEUI and the group formerly known as ACORN).

Conspiracy fans could go nuts.

Arizona declares illegal activity to be illegal

Arizona just declared the federally-illegal activity of crossing the border illegally to be against state law.

Then President Obama promptly says that's unfair, and he orders the courts to look into the Constitutionality of the new law.

The Constitutionality of enforcing the existing law? Come on!

NASA: No More Gov't Sponsored Space Flight: A Bad Thing?

NASA only has two more planned space flights. All near-future space projects (by the US) have been canned. I was very discouraged to hear this. At first.

I am all for space flight. For lots of reasons. For one, I like scifi. For more practical issues, I would like to see us reach beyond our own planet, for research, for exploration, for resources, and for territorial expansion. And we have a lot of nostalgia wrapped up in the space program.

But should it be done by the government? Show me, where in the Constitution does the government have authority to fund exploration of any sort?

Exploration has historically, in our country anyway, been done by private parties. Individuals and businesses who have an interest in the exploration.

And we now have a commercial space tourism company, Virgin Galactic, with ships manufactured by Scaled Composites.

And now Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell is promoting a Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority. Do I have a problem with that? Its the state doing it, not the Federal government. The US Constitution only restricts the Federal government. The Governor expects this will create jobs and boost the economy, so sure, he can do that.

So, we are progressing to space. Just not on the dime of the Federal taxpayers.

Now we just need the researchers that NASA is keeping to realize that they need to put their dollars into US-based companies and organizations rather than in Russia and China.

Postal Service Reductions: A letter to my Congressman

A letter to my Congressman, Rick Boucher.

----------------------------------------

I am all for the proposed Postal Service (USPS) reductions in Saturday services. These reductions simply matches existing services offered by United Parcel Service (UPS) and Federal Express (FedEx).

Which brings up a bigger issue. Spin the USPS off as a private organization and remove the current competition restrictions on private businesses from non-priority postal delivery. USPS has outlived its purpose as a government-run organization, as private organizations have long-since proven capable in this space.

No regular-level postal employees will lose jobs, or not immediately, as only the administration will change. Private business leadership can be expected to soon bring the USPS into profitability through improvements in efficiency and cost reductions the current government affiliations do not allow. In addition, competition in the private space will provide the double benefit of improved service at lower prices.

At the very least, the USPS will benefit from an improved image. Many people and organizations, myself included, currently avoid use of regular postal mail due to its reputation for poor performance.

While private businesses such as UPS and FedEx consistently operate at a profit in the same market, USPS repeatedly runs in the red, with these large deficits covered by the generosity of the American taxpayers.

Healthcare Bill: Now law, but fraudulent

There were lots of pleas for compassion going into the healthcare debates.

Every scenario has anecdotal evidence, that is, specific examples that seem to prove whatever the speaker wants to prove. Any businessperson knows that no decisions should ever be made solely on anecdotal evidence. Yes, there are people that have had huge bills due to lack of health insurance.

But did you know that most of the examples we've been given have not been accurate? Some of them have been made up, and others were blown way out of context?

Examples:

The President said that people who want to get insurance on their own pay three times of that through an employer. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that's not so.

The President told the story of a man who had cancer, lost his insurance, couldn't get chemotherapy, and died. Not true -- the newspaper author of the story retracted it, but the President continued to tell the story after the retraction.

Lots of people say that people can't get medical care if they don't have insurance. They can get whatever care they need -- the law doesn't allow care providers to refuse care based on ability to pay. True, the person may get billed huge amounts (which they may never pay off, and which cannot legally be passed to inheritors), but they do get the care. Chemotherapy, heart transplants, whatever.

And just before the Congressional vote, the President introduced a small boy whose mother died of cancer after she couldn't get treatment without insurance.

Two problems with that. First, the mother was a member of a group dedicated to getting people to meet the needs of others by sharing from their own resources (a system some refer to, more-or-less accurately, as "communist"). But they wouldn't even meet the needs of one of their own members. You see, they wanted the government to meet the need, and not themselves personally, despite what they say.

But the government? That directly brings up the second point. She QUALIFIED FOR MEDICAID! But MediCaid didn't help her. She qualified for government healthcare assistance, but still didn't get it.

Yes, it's a tragic story. But the government-provided healthcare was already available, and this government-provided healthcare failed her.

And they want this already-failed system to be enforced on everyone else?!?!

Healthcare: They'll "Do Whatever It Takes"

Well, President Obama and Speaker Pelosi have exposed a little more about themselves.

They have both said that they'll do "whatever it takes" to pass comprehensive government-regulated healthcare.

The problem is what it is "taking: things that are unconstitutional, and things that used to be considered illegal.

Things that are unconstitutional, like:

Requiring everyone to purchase something just for being a citizen.

Everyone makes the comparison with car insurance, but that's not accurate. For one, the law (which is state law, by the way, not federal) does not require comprehensive insurance; only other people are protected, not the owner. On the side of health care, other people were already protected from an individual's actions -- under criminal and tort law.

Secondly, auto insurance does not include wear-and-tear on the vehicle. That's the range of warranties and "extended warranties", and no state requires a car owner purchase or maintain an extended warranty on his or her car.

And things that are illegal, like:

Giving Congressmen Federal jobs if they promise to vote the "right" way. One Congressman has been promised the ambassadorship to NATO. One has been promised the administration of of NASA (they have an "administrator" rather than a "director").

These aren't "iffy" things like pork benefits to the Congressman's district that indirectly benefit the Congressman him/herself -- these are things that reasonably have cash value, since a job, even a cushy, appointed job, involves a salary. In fact, the cushy ones tend to have more monetary value than the others, since they also tend to have perks. NATO is based in Belgium -- a nice spot for a vacation home, from what I understand. And a vacation home paid for by other people that is, us, the tax-payers) is so-much-the-better.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has promised to "kick through the door" to pass this regulation. The problem is that it's the door to someone else's house. And she knows it. And she doesn't care -- she wants in. And she wants everything you've got, so she can give it all away to her friends.

Get ready -- she's kicking on your door, and she's got a freight truck with her.

Harvard University: Obama will cause gas to be $7/gallon

Think we need to regulate CO2? You know, the gas that everybody breathes out? The gas that trees need to live? The gas that some claim is causing the non-existent "global warming"?

Harvard University -- not a conservative group, but the President's own alma mater -- and reported by the New York Times, another group not exactly known for conservative leanings -- says that the Obama administration's current proposals for CO2 reductions will cause gasoline to go to $7 a gallon.

$7 a gallon for gas?

Guess what's worse -- most gas is paid for by the middle class.

Do you drive an hour each way to work? Can you afford $10,000 a year just in gas to get to and from work? And that's just gas, not any of the cost of the car or maintenance.

Cost of shipping will skyrocket. Everything in the stores will cost a LOT more, because it has to be trucked in. Even if the stuff is made locally, it has to be driven to the store.

We can't afford CO2 regulation, whether it be by the EPA, "Cap and Trade", or otherwise. Real scientists say that it's probably not causing global warming anyway.

Government Projects ≠ Created/Saved Jobs

Please, our politicians, please realize that government public works projects do not create or save jobs.

• First, most companies that do public works projects aren't in trouble anyway.

This is simply because the government is already their main source of work, and the government hasn't cut back in those projects when the rest of the economy cut back.

• Second, these projects don't add jobs, or at least not in any notable numbers.

These projects just keep the current employees a little busier. The companies can't just hire people from other "construction" industries (which are in trouble) without completely retraining them - a framing carpenter doesn't know how to lay asphalt, and a residential housing engineer doesn't have expertise in bridge design.

• Third -- and as the President has paid lip-service to -- most jobs are created by small businesses.

Government projects primarily go to large businesses. In fact, President Barack Obama has tried to put in legislation that requires most work of large projects go to unionized companies.

Why? The President has said -- over and over -- that he never makes a move without consulting the unions. He also -- and illegally, I might add -- gave the majority ownership of GM to the unions, rather than to the collateralized loan holders, those who were given -- in writing -- ownership of the company or property, in exchange for the risk of the loan. You know, like your home loan? How would your bank like it if you filed for bankruptcy and the court gave your divorced ex-wife title to your house free and clear, and only gave the bank 2 cents on the dollar? That's not only unfair to them, it's illegal. But President Obama did just that, or more specifically, he directed his appointee "car czar" to do that. Sorry -- off-topic rant.

If the government bought lots of goods from small businesses - pens, desks, computers, stuff like that, the business would get a boost from that, and might hire some people, at least temporarily.

If the government would reduce taxes on owners of small businesses, you know, the demonized "wealthy" who make $250k or more, since all sole proprietorship and partnership business revenue goes on the owners' personal tax returns, they might be able to hire more people.

If the government would declare that no new fees, taxes, or regulations of any sort would be placed on small businesses, they might have enough confidence to hire some people.

Oh, and concerning capital gains taxes: Small businesses don't have "capital," stocks or bonds, to have any capital gains taxes. All "gains" show up as regular income for the owner. Besides, capital gains taxes have been 0% for years. But those rates are expiring, and some people (like President Barack Obama) think they can get some political steam by essentially just not raising them back to where they were, for a small group that wouldn't be affected by it anyway.

State of the Union: Brief summary

Didn't comment yesterday on this - the State of the Union speech went late, and I didn't think to post then.

Summary: Lots of promises, most of which have already been repeatedly broken. Things like:

Full transparency. The President -- not just Congress and Senate, who have done it too -- has had closed-door meetings on healthcare. This is is not exactly an issue of national security, so that can't be used as an excuse. And he specifically promised that all discussions would be carried on C-SPAN, but not only were the meetings not on C-SPAN, but he didn't even allow the press to attend.

No favors or earmarks. Not only has he signed bills containing THOUSANDS of earmarks, he himself negotiated exemptions for unions from healthcare taxes.

Get all lobbyists out of Washington. He has appointed lobbyists to his own cabinet!

Allow gays to openly serve in the military. Whether you agree or not, he has promised it. And it came up a few months ago. And he specifically decided make the change. In the State of the Union speech, he said he would repeal the law -- but it's not a law, it's a policy. and as such, he can change that with a stroke of his pen. But he chose not to do it, despite his promises.

Oh, and he continued to blame his problems on Bush, uh, inherited issues. He has been President for over a full year now. They're his issues now. And many of the issues we have, he actually created himself. While the TARP program might have come under Bush (and I do blame Bush for it as well), he did vote for it.

Political Contributions: Unions OK, But Companies Not?

The Supreme Court just ruled a law as unconstitutional that prevented corporations (which are legal "persons") from making political contributions.

And the Democrats are howling. They say that it is "un-American" for companies to make political contributions. Companies for whom their interests lie in smaller, less-restrictive government and lower taxes.

But those same Democrats say that is is perfectly fine for labor unions to make political contributions. Unions whose interests lie in more regulation and larger government, even at the expense of the companies who pay the bills.

Hypocrite much?

Harry Reid: A Politically-Correct Racist

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), one of the leaders of the Democratic Party, said during the 2008 campaign season that Obama would be acceptable as President because he was a "light-skinned...Negro" and that he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

In other words, Reid didn't want a black man as President. Obama was "close enough" to white to be acceptable.

In 2002, Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (R) said at a birthday party for Senator Strom Thurmond that he had voted for Thurmond for President. Since Thurmond had segregationist history, this was deemed so "racist" that Lott was forced to resign from his position and later from office entirely.

But Reid's statement, which is specifically anti-black, not just one which could be interpreted that way, is largely being overlooked.


I just sent this to my Federal representatives:
--------------------
It has recently come out that Harry Reid said during the 2008 campaign season that Obama would be acceptable as President because he was a "light-skinned...Negro" and that he didn't speak with a "Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."

In other words, Reid didn't want a black man as President. Obama was "close enough" to white to be acceptable.

We do not need an overt racist in one of the most influential positions in American politics.

Promised Transparency? Clear as Concrete...

President Obama promised that all healthcare discussions would be televised live on C-SPAN.

The Congress did not do that, but the President could not control whether or not they would comply with his own promise.

This week, President Obama had healthcare meetings at the White House. This was his opportunity to fulfill his promise. Did he? Were all discussions carried on C-SPAN?

Not only were the meetings NOT televised, but no reporters -- at all -- were even allowed in the room.

But we know one thing that came out of the meeting. The unions were promised that they will be exempted from the taxes on "high-value" health insurance that everyone else will have to pay.

Letter to my Congressman and Senators: If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

Letter to my Congressman and Senators:
--------------------
If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

The previous version had favors for Louisiana and Nebraska for the federal government to pay the state portions of Medicare and Medicaid.

President Obama has negotiated favors for the unions, opting them out of taxes that apply to everyone else.

If the health care bill has any favors, please vote against it.

Charitable Contributions Should Be from Excess, Not Debt

Our nation has a long heritage of generosity. But we, as a nation, should not make humanitarian contributions to other nations unless we can afford to do so.

Individuals with sufficient means readily give to the needs of others. In times of many disasters, individual contributions have overshadowed even the huge amounts given by our government.

But as I write this post, our government is out of money. Our government is running at a deficit in the TRILLIONS of dollars. We cannot currently afford to give humanitarian aid out of the federal budget.

Each year, we, as a nation, give billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. We need to stop doing so, until we come to the point that we can again afford to do so out of our excess. It harms our country to borrow money, for example, from China to give to Haiti.

Again, individuals can -- and should be encouraged to -- give to those in need, whether domestic or international. There are many groups that aggregate funds and goods, and then provide them to those in need. A few examples are the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. Our government does encourage such contributions though tax deductibility.

You can give to the Red Cross via their website (redcross.org) or by calling 1-800-Red-Cross. As I write this post, we are learning more about the earthquake in Haiti, for which you can contribute $10 directly via the Red Cross' International Response Fund by texting "Haiti" to 90999.

You can give via AmeriCares, either via their website (AmeriCares.org) or by calling 1-800-486-HELP.

Another humanitarian organization is Care. They can be reached either online (Care.org) or by phone at 1-800-521-CARE.

And Operation USA can be reached via their website (opusa.org), by phone at 1-800-678-7255, or by mail at Operation USA, 3617 Hayden Ave., Suite A, Culver City, CA 90232.

But our government should not give directly until it can do so without further increasing our debt.

(Links for relief organizations are courtesy of Neal Boortz, an Atlanta-based radio host with a website at boortz.com; he has more information on Haiti relief efforts here.)

Cross-posted under Political Positions.

Old jobs, new jobs

85,000 people lost their jobs last month. I associate with them, as I have been without a job for 13 of the last 14 months.

But good news! President Obama has announced that he is going to direct the government to spend even more money to create 17,000 jobs with green energy!

So, 85,000 jobs were lost due to Obama's lousy economy, and we're supposed to get excited about 17,000 jobs he supposedly created?

Nevermind that this is done with our own money. Yes, that includes me -- my unemployment benefits are taxed as income.

Nevermind that these jobs are related to one of Obama's pet themes. Imagine the response if Bush had "created" jobs by sending more people to Iraq, and that if anyone wanted one of these jobs, all he/she had to do was enlist in the military.

Nevermind that the idea behind green jobs is global warming, an exposed hoax that keeps getting promoted while we've got historic low temperatures and record snowfalls, not to mention record low levels of pollution in this country.

Nevermind that these are union jobs, closely affiliated with Obama's friends at SEIU.

Nevermind that these aren't high-paying jobs, well, wouldn't be if the unions weren't involved.

Nevermind that historically every job in "green energy" has resulted in 2 1/2 jobs lost elsewhere.

Thanks, Mr. President. I'll just sit here trying to find a job (I've been told that my industry in this area has 100 applicants for every posted job) while I watch my taxes go up even more.

We keep finding more problems in the Healthcare Bill

Another letter to my Senators, before tomorrow's vote on the massive 2074-page bill:

--------------------

Healthcare in the United States has some problems. The current healthcare bill seeks to address a couple of those problems, such as lifetime caps on benefits, preexisting conditions, and higher premiums or lack of insurability due to preexisting conditions.

However, the more significant issues are not addressed in the bill.

• Frivolous lawsuits and excessive damages are the greatest cost in healthcare today, but tort reform is not addressed in this bill.

• Many people have problems with their insurance denying coverage due to the cost of procedures or perceived necessity of procedures. This bill does not resolve these issues; rather, it adds another layer of bureaucracy – or several – which can deny claims.

• Some are concerned by waiting times for critical procedures. But many expects expect these problems not only not to be improved, but to in fact multiply. Most countries with highly-regulated or federally-provided healthcare have extensive waiting periods for even minor procedures, and some procedures have waiting periods of years, where US citizens can currently get most procedures within days or weeks.

• Insurance premiums are a tremendous concern to many. But the additional regulation and taxes in the bill will certainly increase the cost of both healthcare and insurance. Some experts say that insurance premiums will double within the next year or two.

More troubling, however, for every day that passes, we keep finding more problems in the current healthcare bill.

• We knew that a panel would be established with the power to unquestionably and unappealably decide what does or does not qualify and who does or does not get coverage under Medicare. Some have euphemistically referred to this as a "death panel."

o We now know that this panel will be composed of five individuals appointed by the President, without accountability, without oversight, and without any Senate ability to repeal the panel in the future.

• We knew that the bill has MANY bribes, payoffs, coercions, and other incentives for Senators who were previously hesitant concerning or opposed to the bill. This includes $300 million from the US taxpayers for Louisiana's state healthcare, for which the state, from its own taxpayers, was otherwise expected to pay itself.

o We now know that the US taxpayers will be responsible for every penny of Medicare costs for Nebraska for the rest of time.

• We knew that all US citizens will be required – and unconstitutionally so – to obtain and maintain health insurance, the first time that citizens have ever been required to purchase a service simply for the privilege of living. We also know that only Federally-approved plans will be acceptable.

o But we do not know what criteria will be placed on the acceptable insurance place. Despite the length of over two-thousand pages of the bill, criteria for acceptable insurance programs are not specified in it. These all-important criteria will be specified later.

• In addition, we also now know that abortion will be funded by taxpayer dollars. We have determined that healthcare providers who have conscientious objections to providing abortion will be required to participate anyway or else suffer punitive action.

• We also know that the current bill will institute taxes and fees immediately, but will not start any benefits for another four years. We will be paying for five years of benefits over nine years of taxes and fees. This is not sustainable and results in unrealistic projections.

We also know that you voted for cloture, to end debate and to proceed toward a vote. (In the version sent to Senator Webb:) We know that despite your opposition expressed in your emails to many aspects of the bill, you have effectively voted for it.

The majority of Americans, and the majority of Virginians, do not want this bill. The majority of your constituents do not want this bill. Please work in the interest of your constituents and work against this bill.

Winter Snow ≠ State of Emergency

We are getting a little snow. Some parts of the state might get as much as a foot of snow. So?

And Governor Tim Kaine declared Virginia to be in a "state of emergency"?!?

Because of some snow? It's late December. It's winter. And it's Virginia, not south Florida. It's not the three feet I've seen here before, and which we dealt with without any real problem. It's not the two feet I saw in Georgia on occasion. And it won't be even the one foot in most areas; here in Bristol, we're expecting 4-8 inches.

The stores will sell out of bread and milk. Some gas stations may sell out. Both for the same reason - stupid people who think that if they get stuck at home for a few days, they might starve to death. What's the matter? Forget to go shopping this week? But it happens every time the forecast even calls for snow.

Some people will likely freeze to death. But that is a function of the cold, not the snow -- and it's not that cold, with lows maybe in the 20's; it was colder last week than now.

Some people may die from carbon monoxide poisoning, fumes, house fires, etc -- from using camp stoves, grills, etc, inside the house if they lose power for maybe a day or two. They have a gas grill and not a decent coat? Sounds like misplaced priorities to me. And a lack of common sense besides. And there are public organizations that are willing to help, if they just ask. There are public shelters with warm rooms, if the person just wants the help.

Snow happens. It is NOT an emergency.

Short addendum to my Senators

A vote to end debate is equivalent to a vote to support the bill.

New letter to my Senators

Please only vote for the healthcare bill -- or any other bill, for that matter -- if these three aspects are true:

1 - You have read the entire bill personally and clearly understand all aspects of the bill,

2 - The bill complies with President Obama's pledge that it will contain no pork or earmarks,

3 - You can clearly explain how the bill falls under the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution.

If all three of these are not true, please vote and work against the bill as it is not in the best interest of the citizens of the United States.


I vote, and I actively support, both online and in person, those who work for the best interest of our country.

Another letter to my Senators

Please work against this monstrosity bill that purports to "reform" healthcare. The current bill is 1.1 TRILLION dollars (and growing) of pork and regulation that will not reform. As massive as the regulation is, it does not even address the real problems, including frivolous lawsuits (needing tort reform) and lack of real insurance competition (needing interstate competition). This is a grab for power, not an attempt to solve anything. Please do all you can to eliminate this bill that will otherwise destroy our already-shaky economy.

Global warming? Really?

So, lots of people are in Copenhagen for a couple of weeks to discuss "global warming".

But -

We just locally had the earliest snowfall on record?

Parts of California had their first snow since the 70's?

Lots of areas are reporting record low temperatures?

And apparently, those in Copenhagen don't really believe we are causing global warming anyway, based on all the private jets and limousines they are using. Someone in the news reported that - just in these two weeks - they are producing more carbon dioxide than many countries do in an entire year.

So, either they need to "practice what they preach", or else they don't really believe what they preach.

If that's the case, they are apparently only doing it for either money (Al Gore has made his fortunes off of global warming, but has a mansion that uses ten times the energy of the average house in the area) or power (regulation over every area of life and business).

Think about it.

Another Letter to Senators: Please REJECT any version of the current healthcare bill

I just sent this email to both of my Senators.
--------------------
Subject: Please REJECT any version of the current healthcare bill

We do not want the current healthcare bill in any form or regardless of any amendments.

We do not want government-run healthcare, whether it be through a "public option", a single-payer system, or "co-ops".

We do not want government-funded abortion.

We do not want rationing of care.

We do not want any government official or committee, appointed, elected, directed, or otherwise empowered, to determine what care may or may not be appropriate over the decision of our doctors.

We do not want reduced care for seniors.

We do not want reduced choice, either of care options, care providers, or insurance providers.

We do not want increased taxes, whether they be direct, on healthcare providers, or though employers.

We do not want increased insurance premiums.

We do not want to be forced to buy insurance.

We do not want increased bureaucracy.

We do not want hesitant officials to be bought off with personal or local benefits.

We do not want personal agendas to be furthered through legislation.

This 2000-page bill is full of pork, unnecessary regulation, taxes and fees, and onerous requirements. And who knows what else is hidden in a bill that no one in the Senate has actually read fully.

Please reject this healthcare bill, regardless of any amendments or minor modifications it may have.

Forwarded email: "Maxine on Health Care!"

I don't normally pass on forwarded emails, but this one is both funny and true.

--------------------

Maxine on Health Care!


Let me get this straight.

...we're going to pass a health care plan written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it,

passed by a Congress that hasn't read it but exempts themselves from it,

to be signed by a president that also hasn't read it and who smokes,

with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes,

all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese,

and financed by a country that's nearly broke.

What could possibly go wrong?

Letter to my Senators: "Please REJECT the current healthcare bill."

I just sent this letter to my Senators, Jim Webb and Mark Warner.

--------------------

Please REJECT the current healthcare bill.

The current healthcare "reform" bill does NOTHING to reform malpractice suits, frivolous or otherwise, which are the major cause of increasing healthcare costs.

The bill requires, for the first time in US history and with neither legal nor Constitutional precedent, that all citizens purchase a product or service for simply living, and provides steep penalties for those who choose not to have the service.

The bill includes heavy taxes on the healthcare industry, which will further increase costs as these taxes are passed on to the customers.

The bill requires government-sponsored insurance "options", which inherently and unfairly compete against existing insurance companies, since the government plans have no need to operate at a profit, to break even financially, or to provide good customer service once the existing insurance has been run out of business.

The bill does not provide for private competition, as existing prohibitions against purchasing services from companies in other states are still in effect.

The bill continues biases against personal insurance coverage by not allowing tax deductibility unless the insurance is provided through an employer.

The bill includes government bureaucratic oversight, contrary to promises that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

As an example:

A "task force" has already been established that now "recommends" women who were previously recommended to get mammograms every year after age 40 now only get them every other year and then only after age 50. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If this healthcare plan is instituted, many thousands of women will die who would before have survived, and thousands of women who would have had a simple treatment and rapid recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

In summary, this plan causes more problems without solving the existing ones.

Please both vote and speak against this horrendous plan.

Cancer, Rationing, Broken Promises

President Obama said that "no government bureaucrat will come between you and your doctor."

Really?

The healthcare community has long recommended that women over 40 get mammograms every year. But now, as Congress and Senate try to pass a government takeover of healthcare, a government "task force" has just recommended that be changed. Just to be clear, the data has not changed, only the recommendations.

They now say that only women over 50 should get mammograms, and then only every other year.

Right now, the United States has the best cancer survivorship in the world. If the government enforces this "recommendation" as part of its new healthcare plan, many women will die who would before have survived, and many women who would have had a simple treatment and recovery will now have to endure long, complex, painful (and expensive) treatments, because their cancer was not caught early.

Well, that last part, "expensive," may not come. European countries with government-controlled healthcare don't allow expensive treatments for people over 60. That means that those who are over 60 and get cancer don't get treatment - they get management. Pain therapy. Don't treat the problem; manage the symptoms.

Guess what? It's not (for the most part) the Republicans who are telling people to "die quickly". It's those who are pushing for this government takeover of what is right now the best healthcare system in the world.

It's not perfect, and it can use some tweaks (mostly protection from already overbearing government, like allowing frivolous lawsuits and outrageous penalties), but it's the best anyone has.

States can opt out of Federal health care? Really?

Sorry. After six years, states have to participate, whether they want to or not. If they don't join, they lose the healthcare subsidies that they have had for years, including Medicare matching funds.

New letter to Congressman Rick Boucher

Subject: DO NOT APPROVE THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL!

An amendment (the Ellsworth-DeLauro amendment) has been added to the healthcare bill that supposedly removes taxpayer funding of elective abortion.

It does not.

Analysis by National Right to Life legislative director Douglas Johnson (http://www.lifenews.com/nat5607.html) reveals that the amendment is complex subterfuge, and that all cases of elective abortion will still be permitted - and funded - by other provisions of the bill.

As you are no doubt aware, Creigh Deeds' candidacy for governor was rejected locally 71.85% to 27.25%. If you support this bill, which local voters such as myself are adamantly against, the same may happen to you next year.

New VA Governor: Bob McDonald in total domination

The year after every Presidential election since Carter in 1976, the Virginia gubernatorial election has always gone to the candidate of the other party. That means that Bob McDonald had to win, just according to the way Virginia voters always do things.

But we weren't expecting a 17 percent spread between the two candidates. Particularly since there was only a 12% difference in polling yesterday.

In politics, a 6% difference is considered a landslide. What do they call a 17% difference?

Update: It's actually a 17.41% difference, 58.64% to 41.23%. And Bristol, where I live, was 71.85% to 27.25%, an overwhelming 44.6% difference approaching 3-to-1.

Healthcare Bill: Adding 800 MORE pages the day before the vote?

The current draft of the Congressional healthcare bill is 1990 pages long. Some experts say that it will take a week just to read it, not to mention deciphering it and looking up all the other laws to which it refers.

But wait - there's more!

Nancy Pelosi is working on an 800 PAGE amendment. No telling how much pork and government control is in there.

But that's not all!

She wants a vote on the bill on Friday!

The bill already cuts $500 BILLION from Medicare. Democrats regularly accuse Republicans of wanting to reduce care for seniors. Democrats say that Republicans are against seniors, and that is proven by their opposition to this bill. But this bill will actually do just that.

The bill outlaws any new private health insurance after 2013. We can choose our own insurance? Not with this bill.

The bill pays for elective abortions. Most Americans, even those who think abortion is fine, don't want it paid for by taxes. But this bill will allow mothers to kill their babies and have other people pay for it.

The Congressional Budget Office says that this bill - not including the extra 800 pages - will cost over a TRILLION dollars ($1.055T). Nancy Pelosi says that it won't add anything to the debt? That it won't cost taxpayers "a dime"? Yea, right.

The number Nancy Pelosi herself keeps using is $894 billion, just under the $900 billion cap that President Obama wanted. But that $894 billion is the funding the bill provides for health coverage, not the cost.

Letter to Congressman Rick Boucher

I just sent this email to my Congressman, Rick Boucher.

----------
Subject: DO NOT APPROVE THE CURRENT HEALTHCARE BILL!

The current healthcare bill requires all private healthcare insurance (new registrations) to end in 2013.

I want to choose my own healthcare plan. Please vote against this bill.
----------

There are many other problems in this 2000-page bill, including $500 Billion in CUTS in Medicare, but letters to Congress or Senate members must be short and to-the-point.

I sent similar letters to my Senators, saying to vote against the bill if it gets approved by the House and comes before the Senate.

Deadliest month in Middle East, still no decision by President

With the recent deaths in Afghanistan, this month is the deadliest since the war in the Middle East started in 2002. And the deadliest since...well...August.

What do these months have in common? Simple - both months went without the reinforcements requested by the commanders in the field. Reinforcements requested formally in July and repeatedly requested in briefings since May.

Ummm, didn't Candidate Obama say that he, unlike his predecessor, would LISTEN to his commanders in the field? Didn't he say that he would do what it takes to complete the operation in Afghanistan?

Looks like Bush and Obama have more in common than they like to admit. They both dragged out this war without defined objectives and without giving their commanders what they need to get the job done. And they have both stood idly by as men and women of our armed forces die almost daily.

Get it done or get out. I don't care what your party is. Get it done or get out.

H1N1/Swine Flu: NOT a Pandemic or National Emergency

President Obama just declared H1H1 (Swine Flu) to be a "national emergency".

Why would he think that? And why would we believe that he actually does think that?

In the past year, about 1,000 people have died of H1N1 flu. In the typical year, 36,000 people die of the seasonal flu. Is H1N1 really that bad?

The President and the CDC are pushing that all children need to get the H1N1 inoculation shot. But the President has not had his own kids given the shot he is telling everyone else they need to get.

Does the President really think H1N1 is that bad? Or is he a hypocrite for not doing as he tells everyone else? Or is something else going on?

Remember, his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, said: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste." That's why this administration has been nothing but crisis after crisis after crisis. Healthcare crisis, banking crisis, auto crisis, climate crisis, energy crisis, housing crisis, spectrum crisis... Is this one any different? Is it a play for more power, more control?

Pay Czar: Pay caps - not only for bailed-out companies

You hear about the pay caps for any company that tool any bailout money? You know, taking away the LEGALLY-CONTRACTED and APPROVED BY CONGRESS bonuses for executives who decided to accept a bonus INSTEAD of salary? The bonus they EARNED by MEETING the goals set by Congress? And that if they had not met the goals, they would have only made one penny for the whole year of work?

Well, they met the goals. They earned the bonuses. And the "Pay Czar" is now wanting to take the bonuses away anyway.

But wait - there's more!

These caps don't only apply to the banks that took bailout money. They can apply to all banks, whether or not they were bailed out.

But wait - there's more!

These caps can apply to ANY COMPANY that is deemed to affect the stability of the country. You know, like Walmart or GE?

"And if you act now -"

These caps DO NOT apply to everyone equally. The Pay Czar can choose who to limit and who to not limit.

On the one hand, Walmart has often been criticized by members of Congress and the administration. Some suggest these criticisms are targeted at them largely because they have repeatedly rejected unionization, and the President is - admitted repeatedly - very closely aligned with the largest union, SEIU. You know, the group that causes unrest at healthcare town hall meetings? And tries to make it look like it's the people against the healthcare plan causing the problems? Even while SEIU members are biting people's fingers off? Yea, those people. The President is VERY closely associated with them, and has said - repeatedly - that he consults with them on everything.

On the other hand, GE is closely associated with the Presidential administration, and several top executives have been appointed to plush positions. Guess whose pay is NOT getting capped?

President Obama: Act of Treason?

President Obama is planning to sign a UN global warming treaty.

The problem is, under the US Constitution, the President does not have authority to sign any treaties until first ratified by 2/3 of the Senate. And with the current members of the Senate, such a treaty will never get anywhere close to a 67/23 vote. Or, not in favor of it anyway. The Senate recognizes that their constituents are so firmly against such a thing that they will never approve it, and even if ALL the Democrats did vote for it (which they won't; the "blue dog" Democrats won't vote for it), there are enough Republicans (even after discounting the RINOs ["Republican In Name Only]) to ensure any such UN treaty to ensure a firm rejection.

Without this authority, the President is undermining the government and meeting the very definition of treason.

Anita Dunn, Pres. Obama's "Fox Watchdog" Admires Mao Tse-Tung

Anita Dunn, appointed by President Obama to keep an eye on Fox News, gave a speech before a high school group in June.

In that speech, she said - and gave examples - of how much she admires Mao Tse-Tung. She said that he is one of her "favorite political philosophers." She has two favorites, and he is one.

Mao Tse-Tung took over China by killing anyone opposed to him. He killed 70 million of his own people, and put many more in "re-education" camps and slavery. he said that he would be willing to kill 300 million of his own people to get his victory.

Mao Tse-Tung killed more of his own people than Hitler did, 4 to 7 times as many, in fact. Hitler only had 6 million Jews killed, and 11-17 million total killed.

And this man is her "favorite philosopher"?!?

Doubt my text here? Click the link in the title to see it in her own words.

Perfect example of Liberalism

We have just been handed a perfect example of one side of Liberalism.

That side? Liberalism considered talk to be the same as action.

President Obama has just been given the Nobel Peace Prize. It was given to him for giving "hope for a better future", including reducing nuclear arms and talking with Iran about peace.

But Obama has only TALKED about reducing nuclear arms (which will not actually improve peace, since the radical nations will not give up theirs, but that's another matter), and he has TALKED about meeting with Iran. He has not actually done EITHER. Other Presidents have DONE both; Obama has TALKED about doing both.

Cross in the Mohave Desert

There is currently a political conflict concerning a cross that is standing in the Mohave desert.

Background: In 1934, a group of veterans erected a cross in the desert as a memorial to those who died in the Great War (now known as World War I). In 1994, this land was made into a national preserve, hence it is now "federal land".

A man, supported by the ACLU (naturally) has filed a suit to have the cross removed, claiming that the cross violates the separation of church and state.

There are several problems here. First, any suit requires that the plaintiff have "standing", that is, he must be personally involved in the case. Unless he was personally harmed ("damaged"), he has no ground to file a suit. But he is claiming that he was offended by the cross, which is argued to give him standing in the case.

Second, the Constitution doesn't require a "separation of church and state". It requires that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". That means that Congress should not make any law that concerns any religious organization. Yea, right. They have made lots of law concerning religious groups. But the Constitution says they are not supposed to. As far as Congress is concerned, religious groups do not even exist. That means no laws for them, and no laws against them.

Third: "Congress". The cross was erected by a group of veterans, not the Congress, so the amendment does not apply. Actually, states can (short of more recent court decisions) establish their own religions, and many did so, though they have since been discontinued. Only Congress is restricted by this amendment.

Fourth: "establishment of religion". This is a cross, not an organization, so the amendment does not apply. Which technically means that Congress would be free to make laws concerning this cross if they wanted to, just not restrictions (see the next point). I'm sure the ACLU would like a law that any cross must be lit 24/7 at government expense, unless requested otherwise by the cross's owner...

Fifth: The amendment doesn't stop with forbidding laws concerning establishments of religion. It goes on: "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means that even if a law does not directly concern a religious group, it cannot restrict them. That means that Congress cannot make any law that would restrict this cross in any way. Of course, the lawsuit is handled by the courts, not Congress, so that doesn't apply either.

We see then, that IF this guy is deemed to even have standing to file a suit, the only results would be that he could seek damages for the offense. But he has no monetary claim, since nothing was damaged. He could seek some psychiatric opinion that he has suffered, but he would still have to determine some monetary loss for damages to be awarded - lost productivity or such. Awards for "pain and suffering" generally require gross negligence or some other fault on the part of the defendant.

So, even if this guy won his case, he still gets nothing. Other than maybe an injunction. Yea, issue the cross a restraining order so it can't stalk the guy. If the guy is "harmed" after knowing the "danger", then it's his own fault. You can't sue a stove manufacturer after you've been warned not to put your hand on the burner.

Remember, this cross is only eight-feet-tall, and it's in the middle of the desert. It's not like he's likely to see it on his way to work or anything. But even then, it's freedom. If this guy doesn't like freedom, he can use some of his freedom to move somewhere else.

Chicago Olympics

At the end of Round One:

Chicago, with the fewest votes for the 2016 Olympic Games...
You are the Weakest Link. Goodbye!

Good news!

We've just gotten two bits of good news!

1 - Chicago has been eliminated from consideration for the 2016 Olympics. YAY!

We don't want the second most politically-corrupt city (after New Orleans) getting it.


2 - President Obama met with General Stanley McChrystal briefly before leaving Copenhagen. YAY!

Despite last month being the deadliest in the middle east since we went there in 2002,
and despite Obama's loud insistence as a candidate that we need to listen to the commanders on the ground,
he has only met with his commander in Afghanistan (whom he appointed) ONCE in the past 70 days.
OK, now they have met twice.

Now Obama needs to approve the troops that McChrystal says we have to have to avoid losing the war...

President Obama promotes Chicago in Denmark rather than approving Afghanistan needs

I recently posted that President Obama has still not responded to the general that he appointed concerning needs in Afghanistan. General Stanley McChrystal said over a month ago that we need more troops in Afghanistan or else we will lose the war there.

Now, President Obama has gone to Denmark, with all his staff, to promote his home town of Chicago to get the Olympics.

And our men and women in the military are still fighting and dying, undersupported because President Obama has waited over a month now without even responding to the requests.

Afghanistan: Do it or don't do it

Did you hear that August was the deadliest month in the Iraq/Afghanistan theater since we went there in 2002? Yes, despite all the protests by Democrats that Bush was killing our troops, Obama has seen more killed himself.

The general that President Obama himself appointed to oversee the war in Afghanistan has strongly recommended that we need more troops. He says we need them NOW.

When healthcare issues or stimulus issues come up, President Obama says these bills must go through now - don't even bother reading it, just pass it - it's too important to get done now. But when his own appointee general gives him a report about Afghanistan, he lets it sit on his desk for WEEKS without action.

Instead, the President goes on TV shows. He's been on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Univision, and The David Letterman Show; he's given talks to the UN (apologizing for the United States again), been to meetings in Russia, and he's taken a vacation on Martha's Vineyard, all since he's gotten the report on Afghanistan. And he has still not done anything about the report, still not approved the troops that are, according to the report, NECESSARY to win the war.

Now, I'm not sure the troops are needed. I think we should be able to use a technological solution, but that's my bias. But I think we should do WHATEVER IT TAKES to get the job done. Get it done, and get our troops home.

If you don't have enough troops available, I have a simple solution. Transfer everyone from Germany, Britain, Australia, Ireland, and anywhere else they are not actively needed for our own defense Close every base in other countries, unless we actively need them for our own defense. Put enough troops in Afghanistan that there will be one every square yard over the entire country. Take out EVERY MEMBER of the Taliban and EVERY MEMBER of Al Qaeda and EVERY MEMBER of any other terrorist group, with, as they say, extreme prejudice. If there's a stronghold and you can't get to it, use a cruise missile with a tactical nuke and destroy it.

Get the job done and bring our troops home.

Or, if you're unwilling to do what it takes, then just bring them home. It's better to admit defeat now, than to wait until you've allowed another few thousand of our men and women die and then pull them out.

Letter to my Senators and Congressman: Do not support ANY bailout of media

There is now discussion of possible bailouts for newspaper companies. I just sent this letter to my Senators and Congressman.
--------------------
Do not support ANY bailout of media companies, including, but not limited to, as any newspaper company. The majority of media companies are losing market share because they are losing customers, and they are losing customers for many reasons, such as inaccurate, incomplete, and/or biased reporting. The Constitution guarantees the ability to print anything the publisher desires to print. It does not guarantee that anyone wants to read it. And it certainly does not require such printings be conducted at the public expense.

ACORN's out from census and HUD - now get SEIU out

After all the scandals, ACORN has been removed from the census (which they were going to take) and Housing and Urban Development, which has been giving them lots of money supposedly for helping low-income people to find housing.

But SEIU is cut from the same cloth. Two brothers, Wade and Dale Rathke, control both. Wade is over ACORN and Dale is over SEIU. They share a headquarters. They share funding. They share a shell company that handles all the funding (a private not-for-profit company, so all their records are private).

Get SEIU out too. And get both of them all the way out, not just partway out.

ACORN: Promoting prostitution, including child prostitution

News broken this morning:

ACORN, the organization that President Obama worked for as an attorney and "community organizer", the organization that has been given charge of the 2010 census by the White House - and the organization that has been charged in many states with election fraud...

ACORN - has been caught on tape with several members, not just a "rogue" employee, actually showing people how to engage in prostitution, including child prostitution, and how to do so with the appearance of legality.

They said to report the business activity as "performing arts", and to register the children as dependents for tax credit.

This group is getting MILLIONS, maybe even BILLIONS of dollars from US, the American taxpayers.

We've seen before how they register people like "Mickey Mouse" and others as voters.

We've seen how they bus people in from out of state to vote in places where advance registration is not required.

We've seen them organize protests and bus tours of the AIG executive homes, to make it seem that the general public was upset.

We've seen them "participate" at town hall forums concerning the President's healthcare agenda and we've seen them yell and get violent, so as to give the impression that those who object to the plan were unruly - when it was actually ACORN (and SEIU) people doing it all along.

And now we see them showing others how to do what they do best - how to game the system for personal benefit, even when the "personal benefits" are clearly and notoriously illegal.

Hewalthcare: "A means to an end"

President Obama said in preparation for his speech tonight that a public option of healthcare is not an end in itself, but is only a means to and end.

Well, we already knew that. The public option is a means to the total government takeover of our healthcare system. And the takeover of healthcare is but one step in a takeover of all aspects of our society.

They have started with banks and auto manufacturing, and these people in charge, some of whom call themselves "progressive" (a system where all wealth is redistributed according to the dictates of the ruling party), some of whom call themselves "socialist" (a system where the government controls all business without owning it directly), and some of whom call themselves "communist" (a system where the government outright owns all business) will not be satisfied until they, as the President himself has said, "fundamentally transform America".

Van Jones: Gone, but not forgotten

Van Jones, the self-proclaimed Communist Green Jobs Czar, uh, Special Advisor on Green Jobs, has resigned due to the controversy surrounding his involvement with a 9-11 conspiracy group (a group that believes the US government caused the 9-11-2001 disaster).

But is he really gone? Is he still advising President Obama, whether in an official capacity or otherwise?

And what about the affiliated group The Apollo Project that wrote the stimulus / Recovery Act and got $11 billion out of it for themselves and more for the unions they represent?

And what about the other, less vocal but nevertheless strong, Communists, Marxists and Socialists in the administration? Remember, President Obama himself proclaimed himself as a Marxist in college, and was friends in Chicago with the founder of the terrorist group Weather Underground - and initiated his run for Senate in his house.

In other words, Van Jones is no longer in an official position. But we still have to watch these people very closely. Remember, President Obama himself said that we can judge him by the people with which he surrounds himself.

Senator Edward Kennedy and Health Care

Senator Edward Kennedy died last night.

He has had a year and a half of treatments trying to save his life.

If the healthcare plan he has pushed passes, other people will not be able to get similar care. They will be given pain treatments instead.

This is not my opinion; Health Czar Dr. Ezekial Emanuel says that care will be provided based on "quality-adjusted life years." That means that if treatment costs more than $50,000 per anticipated year of quality life, the treatment will be denied.

It also means that if treatment will not significantly improve either length or quality of life, the treatment will be denied - for instance, if the procedure will just reduce pain (say, back surgery or knee/hip replacement), they'll just give pain treatments instead.

Of course, the current Democratic healthcare plan exempts the Congress and Senate members from itself; it only applies to "regular people"...

Reasonable Questions

On his show and copied on his website, Glenn Beck (Fox News) has posed some good questions. Questions that aren't being answered.

Questions like:

- Who is "surrounding" the President in the White House?

- Do any of the President's advisers have criminal records?

- Are the President's advisers working to better the country or their own ideals?

- Who are the anti-capitalists in Washington?

- What roles do they have in crafting bills?

- What was "STORM"? What happened to the founders, where are they now?

- What qualifications must one have to be a Presidential adviser?

- What is the difference between a community organizer and a community activist?

- Do the czars have power?

- Should a communist have the ear of the President of the United States?

- What role did the Apollo Alliance play in crafting bills?

- Does the President know the co-founder of the Weather Underground is a board member of the Apollo Alliance?

- How many people in the administration are connected to the movement for a democratic society?

- What role does George Soros play... CONSTITUTIONALLY?

----
- Our unfunded liability for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is close to $100 trillion. Is there any way to pay for these programs without bankrupting America?

- We are in so much debt, why spend more borrowed money on cap-and-trade and healthcare programs before we stop the flow of red-ink?

- The stimulus package funneled billions of dollars to ACORN. How does giving billions of dollars to ACORN stimulate the economy?

- If it was so important for congress to pass the stimulus bill before they even had time to read it why has only a fraction of the stimulus money been spent 6 months later?

- Bush said he had to abandon free market principles in order to save them, how exactly does that work?

- Why won’t members of Congress read the bills before they vote on them?

- Why are citizens mocked and laughed at when they ask their congressman to read the bills before they vote on them?

- Was the cash-for-clunkers program meant to save the earth or the economy? Did it accomplish either?

- How did Van Jones, a self-proclaimed communist become a special advisor to the president?

- Did President Obama know of Van Jones’ radical political beliefs when he named him special advisor?

- The Apollo Alliance claimed credit for writing the stimulus bill—why was this group allowed to write any portion of this bill?

- If politicians aren’t writing the bills and aren’t reading the bills, do they have any idea what these 1000 page plus bills actually impose on the American people?

- If the ‘public option’ health care plan is so good why won’t politicians agree to have that as their plan?

- If town hall meetings are intended for the politicians to learn what’s on our mind—why do they spend so much time talking instead of listening?

- Politicians are refusing to attend town hall meetings complaining, without evidence, that they are scripted. Does that mean we shouldn’t come out and vote for you since every campaign stop, baby kiss and speech you give is scripted?

- Why would you want to overwhelm the system?

- Is using the economic crises to rush legislation through congress what Rahm Emanuel meant when he talked about "not letting a crises go to waste"?

- What are the czars paid? What is the budget for their staffs/offices?

Green Job Czar: Avowed Radical Communist

You read that right. Van Jones, the President's appointed "Special Adviser on Green Jobs," AKA "Green Jobs Czar"is a self-proclaimed Radical Communist. He has been in prison for radical activities, and spent time in jail associated with the Rodney King riots in LA.

That's not me or anyone else calling him a "communist" - it's him calling himself that.

How did he get past the FBI's vetting (background check) process? Simple. The White House does their own vetting now; they won't let the FBI look into his past.

War: Either Do It or Don't Do It

Just like with George H W Bush and George W Bush in Iraq:

Mr. President, either get the job done in Afghanistan or get out.

Don't just play around with it. Let the men and women who are trained to take down an enemy do what they are trained to do. Or bring them home.

Either way, finish there. Don't drag it out for the next eight years and wait for somebody else pull them out for you.

My personal preference: Take out Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Completely. (I am considering that "if you cut off the head, the snake will die;" ex-members of a dead group don't need to be individually taken out unless they are themselves a continuing threat.)

Don't play around with threats to our national security. Like poisonous snakes, either kill them or leave them alone. We don't want to get bitten again, because that would probably mean thousands (or more) of more people would die.

Of course, if they nuke DC, we'll get a new Congress and Senate out of it... But that's no excuse for the collateral damage of possibly millions of people to die because you just wouldn't let our military and intelligence services do their jobs.

It should be quite simple, really. We know our services have the ability to infiltrate them, a few people in varied positions. They can take out the leadership. In a manner that allows deniability, obviously. (Yea, the Taliban leadership must have gotten some dirty water or something. Always drink UPstream from the horses. We had nothing to do with it...)

Dems say Republicans only complain, no ideas

The Democrats repeatedly say that the Republicans only complain about the Democrat healthcare bill and offer no ideas of their own.

Well, I will readily admit that the Republicans aren't doing nearly as much as they could. That the Democrats can say what they do without getting laughed at is a case in point.

But the simple matter is that while the Democrats have put out one healthcare plan, the Republicans have put out three.

There is a saying that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it as true. The Democrats are telling lie after lie, but the Republicans aren't standing up to them.

"Stimulus" Exposed, This Week on Fox News

This week on Fox News (each night at 5PM EDT), Glenn Beck is going to expose the people and motives behind the "Stimulus" package.

He has given some information already on his radio show.

Rep. John Conyers said that he didn't need to read the bill, and mocked those who said he needed to, not because the bill isn't important, but because he trusts those who wrote it. This is a key in the Progressive movement - you don't need to actually do your job (that is, read the bill and make sure it is good for your constituents); just trust those who work with you in your movement.

So, who wrote the bill? Glenn gave some info on some of the people, but it's a long list. It includes heads / key figures in the big unions (United Steelworkers, SEIU), extreme environmental groups, Zero Population Growth, and members of the Revolutionary Communists. Not just "regular" Communists, but "Revolutionary" Communists.

Watch Glenn Beck at 5PM on Fox News for all the details. He is not speculating on this; he has all the documentation. (5PM EDT - adjust the time for your situation of you're not in Eastern Time.)

Our Federal Government is Financially Irresponsible

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers. The money was supposed to last 5 months, but it was gone in the first weekend.

Their response? Triple the funding. As it turned out, that only lasted a few more weeks. The Cash for Clunkers program, which was supposed to last until November 1, will now end on Monday, August 24.

A simple rebate requires 30 pages of paperwork, which has 136 pages of documentation. Rebate forms are being returned unpaid for simple spelling mistakes. The user agreement on the government website (though it was later changed after people complained) said that any computer that accessed the site became the property of the federal government and all information on it could be copied and any communications could be monitored and all information could be shared with any government entity, national or international.

Car dealers aren't getting reimbursed. They are giving out $3500-4500 per customer out of their own pockets (literally - most dealerships are sole proprietorships), but a month later, the government has only repaid 2% of the amount they've promised. Dealerships are stopping using the program because they can't afford it. And some in positions to know such things suggest that if the federal money runs out, the dealerships will just be out of luck on getting repaid at all.

Our federal government can't handle $1 billion for Cash for Clunkers.

But the same government, with the same legislators and the same bureaucrats, says they want $1.5 trillion for healthcare. They say they'll improve things. They really expect us to trust them?


With healthcare, the $1.5T will be spent in just as short a time. Then they'll just pass increases. Of course, they won't be able to just end the program once they've dismantled our current system, so they'll have to increase the funding again. Obviously, this means taxes. They've already long forgotten the campaign promises for no tax increases of any kind on anyone making less than $250,000/year, so there's no telling where things will head at that point.

There's no telling how much paperwork will be involved for a simple checkup, an x-ray of a suspected broken leg, a cut that needs stitches. Will the doctor be required to complete the 30 pages (or 300 pages, the way things are heading) before giving someone a drug for a heart attack? Or will the patient be expected to complete the paperwork himself before he can receive any treatment?

Will costs be unreimburseable if the form has a spelling mistake? Will coverage be denied if an emergency procedure isn't approved in advance by a government bureaucrat? Will doctors have to wait months for reimbursement? Will doctors stop accepting the government "insurance" plan like car dealers are doing with Cash for Clunkers, even if it means moving out of the country?

Unreasonable? Yes. But remember, the people passing the regulations won't have to deal with it themselves. Congress has already exempted themselves; they have their own plan for themselves and their families.